SASI ENTERPRISES Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
LAWS(SC)-2014-1-68
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on January 30,2014

Sasi Enterprises Appellant
VERSUS
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

GOOD HOME (P) LTD. AND ORS. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-362] [REFERRED TO]
DINESHARAN RADHAMOHAN KHARE VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-7-1205] [REFERRED TO]
JAY POLYCHEM INDIA LTD & ANR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(DLH)-2018-11-338] [REFERRED TO]
MAA DIWRI RICE MILLS PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-12-69] [REFERRED TO]
MRS. NOORJAHAN VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(MAD)-2022-4-90] [REFERRED TO]
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KALI PRADIP CHOWDHURI [LAWS(CAL)-2023-2-30] [REFERRED TO]
GUNWANT SINGH SALUJA VS. STATE OF JHARKHAND [LAWS(JHAR)-2023-10-7] [REFERRED TO]
BEEVER ESTATES PVT.LTD VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(KER)-2019-10-355] [REFERRED TO]
RAKSHIT JAIN VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (ACIT) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-10-239] [REFERRED TO]
PRADIP BURMAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICE [LAWS(DLH)-2015-12-48] [REFERRED TO]
SH. VIRBHADRA SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE SHIMLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-91] [REFERRED TO]
KARAN LUTHRA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) [LAWS(DLH)-2018-9-279] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KARNATAKA VS. SELVI J. JAYALALITHA & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-2-29] [REFERRED TO]
VIRBHADRA SINGH (HUF) THROUGH ITS KARTA VIRBHADRA SINGH VS. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [LAWS(HPH)-2017-10-33] [REFERRED TO]
PRATIBHA SINGH VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CIRCLE SHIMLA, INCOME TAX OFFICE & ANOTHER [LAWS(HPH)-2016-12-219] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)We are concerned 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. J. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively. Criminal Appeal Nos.62 and 63 of 2007 relate to J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala respectively for the assessment years 1993-94. Proceedings giving rise to these appeals originated from the complaints 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 committing offences punishable under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). 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. Appellants filed two discharge petitions under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C., which were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 14.6.2006. Appellants preferred Crl. R.C. Nos.781 to 786 of 2006 before the High Court of Madras which were dismissed by the High Court vide its common order dated 2.12.2006, which are the subject matters of these appeals.
(2.)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. 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. In the complaint 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. Partnership deed dated 04.05.1990 itself stated that the partners, A-2 and A-3 are responsible and empowered to operate bank accounts, have full and equal rights in the management of the firm in its business activities, deploy funds for the business of the firm, appoint staff, watchman etc. and to represent the firm before income tax, sales tax and other authorities.
(3.)M/s Sasi Enterprises, the firm, did not 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. J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala did not file returns for the assessment year 1993-94 and hence they are being prosecuted for that breach (in their individual capacity) separately but not 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. In those returns it was mentioned that accounts of the firm had not been finalized and no returns of the firm had been filed.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.