"Addressed to the Supreme Court for extension of time and for soliciting instructions. The case is posted for further proceedings to September 18. The reply is awaited and as such the case is adjourned," Additional Chief Metropolitan R Dakshinamurthy said.
The IT Department has filed criminal cases against Jayalalithaa and Sasikala, erstwhile partners of Sasi Enterprises for 'willful failure' to furnish IT returns for 1991-92 and 1992-93 assessment yearrs, alleging they had committed offenses punishable under the Income Tax Act, 1961.
On January 30, 2014, the Supreme Court had fixed a four- month deadline to complete the trial by the Additional CMM court where the trial of the IT case was pending.
In April, the CM filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking extension of time due to the then ongoing poll process.
A Division Bench of the court, which heard the petition, extended time for a further three months which commenced from June 6, 2014.
On June 25 with a view to settling the litigation out of court, Chief Minister Jayalalithaa and Sasikala filed compounding applications before the IT Department.
When the matter came up in the previous hearing, counsel for Jayalalitha submitted the IT department has formed a committee to consider the applications filed by them and to decide whether the cases can be settled by paying penalty or fine for the lapses.
When the matter again came up today, the IT Department said it needs some more time to decide on the applications.
It said that as per the guidelines of the Central Board of Direct Taxes, a detailed procedure is to be followed and it is necessary to verify if the conditions laid down in the guidelines are fulfilled or not.
It also said further information is being obtained from various sources, including some external agencies to assess.
However, Special Public Prosecutor for IT cases K Ramasamy said the trial court could comply with the directions of the Supreme Court to complete the trial within the specified period as it takes some more time.
The counsel for the CM sought two-week adjournment in the wake of the applications filed. He submitted that further proceedings may not be initiated.
Allowing both petitions, the Additional CMM adjourned the trial proceedings citing that a reply is awaited from the apex court for extension of time to complete the trial.