Glimpses of Supreme Court Rulings

8. Vijay Krishnaswami vs. The Deputy Director of Income Tax (Investigation)

(2025) 177 taxmann.com 807(SC)

Prosecution - The complaint was filed by DDIT after sanction of PDIT before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E.O.II), Egmore, Chennai, on 11.08.2018 - Application under Section 245(C) was filed by the Appellant before the Settlement Commission later - On the date of lodging the prosecution, the finding of concealment of income or imposition of the penalty of more than ₹50,000/- was not recorded by the ITAT - Nothing was brought on record to show that any wilful attempt to evade the payment of tax was made by Assessee - No explanation had been put forth by Revenue to demonstrate as to why PDIT or DDIT did not comply the procedure while lodging prosecution in this case - The act of the authority in continuing prosecution was in blatant disregard to their own binding circular dated 24.04.2008 and in defiance to the guidelines of the Department – Further, in the settlement proceedings, Assessee had disclosed all material facts related to the computation of his additional income and fully satisfied the provisions of Section 245H - The Commission recorded a finding that overall additional income is not on account of suppression of any material facts and it did not disclose any variance from the manner in which the