The Madras High Court while dismissing a plea challenging Alternation of charges on persons accused of non-payment of Income Tax arrears held that Charges can be altered even after reversing Judgement.
The allegation in the complaint, G. Victor Devasahayam filed in 1991 that the petitioner was in the trade of manufacturing and sale of Pesticides and Chemicals for agricultural purposes and was also engaged in Research activities. On 30.06.1983, the petitioner filed return of Income for the Assessment year 1983-84 claiming a loss of Rs.5,74,033/- wherein a Capital Expenditure of Rs.1,24,10,880/- was claimed on Scientific Research relating to his business. The above sum included a claim of Rs.59,88,893/- being the cost of purchase of Land.
The First accused Company was having their Research and Development wing at Padappai and Thiruvottiyur and was recognized by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR) under Section 25(1) (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. As suggested by the study team of ICAR, the accused Company wanted to have a Centralised Laboratory within the City of Madras for its Process and Development work and accordingly the above mentioned property was purchased. But the said claim was rejected by the Assessing Officer mainly on the ground that the property was purchased barely 4 days before the completion of the Assessment year and therefore, it could not have been used for the Scientific Research as claimed. The accused submits that disallowing the said claim, the assessment was completed by adding the aforesaid sum of Rs.59,88,893/- as income and apart from the levying tax of Rs.39,41,253/- levied a sum of Rs.63,19,208/- as penalty. Thereafter, notices were issued for the tax arrears and assets of the first accused were attached.
It is not disputed that sanction under Section 279 (1) of Income Tax Act has already been granted and sanctioned for the offence under Section 276(C)(1) and other offences. Since the expression “unless the sanction had been already obtained for a prosecution on the same facts as those on which the altered or added charge is found”, new or fresh sanction is not required, as contemplated under Section 216(5) of Cr.P.C., is present.
The single bench of Justice Rmt. Teekaa Raman while relying on the supreme court in the case of Dr.Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. has held that the stage of the proceedings is irrelevant for alteration of the charge and hence, no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan AdFree. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates.