MHC refuses to quash the IT case against DMK MP Kathir Anand

CHENNAI: The Madras High Court on Tuesday dismissed the petition filed by DMK MP Kathir Anand seeking to quash the case registered against him by the Income Tax Department.

DMK General Secretary Duraimurugan's son and Vellore Lok Sabha member Kathir Anand moved the Madras High Court seeking to quash the case filed by Income Tax (IT) for delay in filing tax returns, before Vellore first class Magistrate.

Justice Anand Venkatesh observed that mere filing of return during the extended time will not come to the aid of the petitioner to escape from criminal prosecution.

This court cannot presume innocence or absence of wilfulness on the part of the petitioner what can be presumed is only culpable mental status, and the onus is upon the petitioner to prove the contrary and that can be done only at the time of trial, Justice added.

This court does not find any ground to interfere with the proceedings pending before the court, it will be left open to the petitioner to raise all the grounds before the court in Vellore, and the same will be considered on their own merits and by law.

Senior counsel Wilson, who appeared for Kathir Anand, said that the mere delay in filing the return or the delay in paying the self-assessment tax cannot be a ground to initiate criminal prosecution and the criminal prosecution against the petitioner is a clear abuse of process of law. Unless the delay is wilful and wanton, and that there is not even an averment to that effect in the complaint, he added.

The IT is misusing its powers against the petitioner since he is not a habitual offender, and in the present case, there is a valid reason assigned for the delay in filing the return and paying the self-assessment tax, said Wilson.

Launching the criminal prosecution is not within the scope of Section 276CC of the Act, he added.

Special Public Prosecutor Sheela, for IT, advanced her arguments that according to Section 278E of the Act, which provides for a statutory presumption of the culpable state and contended that it is for the petitioner to establish in defense that he did not have the culpable state in causing the delay in filing the return and paying the tax, that it can be done only in the course of the trial.

In view of the same, she sought for dismissal of the petition.

After the submissions the Justice said, that the determination of the culpable state of mind is primarily a determination of fact, which requires appreciation of evidence, and dismissed the petition.