9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (2) TMI 237X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Bidar in C.C. No. 2056/2019, C.C. No. 2334/2019, C.C. No. 2333/2019 and C.C. No. 2332/2019 registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 276CC of Income Tax Act. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Department. 3. The respondent had filed four separate private complaints under section 200 of Cr.P.C against the petitioner herein for offence punishable under section 276CC of Income Tax Act 1961 (herein after referred to as the 'Act of 1961'), after obtaining necessary sanction orders from the Competent Authority to prosecute the petitioner for the aforesaid offence. Allegation against the petitioner is that, he had willfully failed to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax returns for the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16. Merely for the reason that, the petitioner had submitted the income tax returns, it will not exonerate him from criminal prosecution. There is a presumption against the petitioner available under section 278E of the Income Tax act which is required to be rebutted by the petitioner in accordance with law before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, there is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned criminal proceedings. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasi Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2014) 361 ITR 163 (SC) and also in the case of V.P.Punj vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns can be traced under Chapter 21 of the Income Tax Act, while Chapter 22 of the Income Tax act provides for offences and prosecutions. A reading of the aforesaid two chapters would make it very clear that delay in filing of the income tax returns would not only result in payment of penalty, but it also results in prosecution as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act. Therefore, merely for the reason that petitioner has paid the penalty levied by the Competent Authority for the delay in filing of the returns, the same does not exonerate the petitioner from being prosecuted as provided under Chapter 22 of the Act of 1961. 9. Section 276CC reads as follows: "If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time [the return of fringe benefi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax or self-assessment tax, if any, paid before the expiry of the assessment year, and any tax deducted or collected at source, does not exceed ten thousand rupees.]] Section 278E of the Act of 1961 reads as follows: "(1) In any prosecution for any offence under this Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution. Explanation - In this sub-section, "culpable mental state" includes intention, motive or knowledge of a fact or belief in, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before according sanction as provided under Section 279 (1) of the Act of 1961 had issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner-assessee granting an opportunity to file his objection and there after objections filed by the petitioner were considered and disposed of by a Speaking Order. Therefore, there is no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner that he was not heard by the Competent Authority before issuing the sanction order to prosecute him for alleged offence. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasi Enterprises at Para No.30 has observed as follows: "30. Section 278E deals with the presumption as to culpable mental state, which was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of his defence and rebutt the presumption available against him under Section 278E of the Act. In the case of C.P Yogeshwara, the Co-ordinate bench of this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the assessee for offence punishable under Section 276CC of Act of 1961, for the reason that the assessee had filed his returns as on the date of order of sanction by the Competent Authority which had gone unnoticed. Therefore the Department had erred in initiating proceedings. In the said case, this Court has not taken notice of the presumption that was available under section 278E of the Act and therefore the order passed in Crl.P.No.1998/2016 cannot be of any assistance to the petitioners, more so in view of the judgment of the Hon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
