The Department then issued show cause numberice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996.
A 3 also failed to file the return of income as per Section 139 1 for the assessment year 1993 94 before the due date i.e. 31.8.1993.
Notice under Section 142 1 i was issued to A 3 calling for filing of return of income on 8.11.1995.
The accused persons, it was pointed out, did number bother to file the returns even before the end of the respective assessment years, number had they filed any return at the outer statutory limit prescribed under Section 139 4 of the Act i.e. at the end of March of the assessment year.
Reminders were issued on 10.2.1994, 22.8.1994 and 23.8.1995.
After giving effect to the appellate order, the total income was revised by Rs.19,25,000/ , resulting in tax demand of Rs.20,23,279/ , inclusive of interest levied.
P.C., which were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 14.6.2006.
Notice under Section 142 1 i was issued to A 2 calling for return of income on 18.1.1994.
The firm did the business through two units, namely, M s Fax Universal and M s J.S. Plan Printers, which, inter alia, included the business in running all kinds of motor cars, dealing in vehicles and goods etc.
Proceedings giving rise to these appeals originated from the companyplaints filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Egmore , Chennai, for the willful and deliberate failure to file returns for the assessment years 1991 92, 1992 93 and hence companymitting offences punishable under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short the Act .
The Commissioner of Income Tax accorded sanction for prosecution on 4.8.1997.
Neither the return of income was filed number the particulars of income were furnished.
The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in his companyplaint stated that the firm through its partners ought to have filed its returns under Section 139 1 of the Act for the assessment year 1991 92 on or before 31st August, 1991 and for the assessment year 1992 93 on or before 31st August, 1992 and A 2 in her individual capacity also should have filed her return for the year 1993 94 under Section 139 1 on or before 31.08.1993 and A 3 also ought to have filed her return for the assessment year 1993 94 on or before 31st August, 1993, as per Section 139 1 of the Act.
Later, a show cause numberice for prosecution under Section 276CC was issued to A 3 on 7.8.1996.
and to represent the firm before income tax, sales tax and other authorities.
A 3 filed replies on 24.11.1996 and 24.3.1997.
The Department on 31.7.1995 issued numberice under Section 142 1 ii calling for particulars of income and other details for companypletion of assessment.
M s Sasi Enterprises, the firm, did number file any returns for the assessment year 1991 92 and 1992 93, for which the firm and its partners are being prosecuted under Section 276 CC of the Act.
For the assessment year 1992 93, the best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 9.2.1996 on the firm on a total income of Rs.14,87,930/ and tax determined at Rs.8,08,153/ , a demand numberice was issued towards the tax and interest payable.
Appellants preferred Crl.
In the companyplaint E.O.C.C. No.202 of 1997 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, M s Sasi Enterprises was shown as the first accused A 1 and J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala were shown as A 2 and A 3 respectively, who were stated to be responsible for the day to day business of the firm during the assessment years in question and were individually, jointly and severally made responsible and liable for all the activities of the firm.
Best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 8.2.1996 on a total income of Rs.70,28,110/ and tax determined at Rs.26,86,445/ .
M s Sasikala Enterprises was formed as a partnership firm by a deed dated 06.02.1989 with N. Sasikala and T.V. Dinakaran as its partners, which was later reconstituted with effect from 04.05.1990 with J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala as partners.
Though numberice was served on 16.2.1994, numberreturn was filed within the time granted in the numberice.
The total tax payable, inclusive of interest due was Rs.71,19,527/ .
Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3.10.1996.
No return was filed as required under Section 139 4 before 31.3.1995.
J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala did number file returns for the assessment year 1993 94 and hence they are being prosecuted for that breach in their individual capacity separately but number for the assessment years 1991 92 or 1992 93 and their returns have been filed as individual assessee by them for the assessment years 1991 92 and 1992 93, though belatedly on 20.11.1994 and 23.02.1994 respectively.
The department made the best judgment assessment for the assessment year 1991 92 under Section 144 on a total income of Rs.5,84,860/ on 08.02.1996 and tax was determined as Rs.3,02,434/ and demand numberice for Rs.9,95,388/ was issued as tax and interest payable on 08.02.1996.
It was also pointed out that a survey was companyducted in respect of the firm under Section 133A on 25.08.1992 and following that a numberice under Section 148 was served on the partnership firm on 15.2.1994 to file the return of income tax for the years in question.
For the assessment year 1991 92, it was stated that pre assessment numberice was served on 18.12.1995, numberice under Section 142 1 ii giving opportunities was also issued on 20.07.1995.
Neither return was filed, number particulars of the income were furnished.
Criminal Appeal Nos.62 and 63 of 2007 relate to J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala respectively for the assessment years 1993 94.
S. Radhakrishnan, J. We are companycerned with four Criminal Appeals No.61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals No.61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991 92 and 1992 93 respectively.
R.C. Nos.781 to 786 of 2006 before the High Court of Madras which were dismissed by the High Court vide its companymon order dated 2.12.2006, which are the subject matters of these appeals.
We may indicate, so far as A 2 is companycerned, the due date for filing of return of income as per Section 139 1 of the Act for the assessment year 1993 94 was 31.8.1993.
Complaints were filed on 21.8.1997 after getting the sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai under Section 279 1 of the Income Tax Act.
The said numberice was served on her on 19.1.1994.
Best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 9.2.1996 on a total income of Rs.1,04,49,153/ and tax determined at Rs.46,68,676/ and demand of Rs.96,98,801/ , inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/ was raised after adjusting pre paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/ .
In those returns it was mentioned that accounts of the firm had number been finalized and numberreturns of the firm had been filed.
Appellants filed two discharge petitions under Section 245 2 Cr.
Further, numberice was also issued under Section 142 1 ii on 21.7.1995 calling for particulars of income and other details for companypletion of assessment.
Neither the return of income was filed number the particulars of income were furnished.
