HC directed Trial where burden to prove was on assessee that no wilful intention for not filing ITR

Raman Krishna Kumar Vs DCIT (Madras High Court)

Conclusion: Since assessee had not filed the Income Tax Return instead of receiving substantial income in the form of salary and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual funds and with respect to credit card transactions, therefore, High Court directed the trial and held that the burden lies on assessee to prove no wilful intention not to file Income Tax Return.

HC directed Trial where burden to prove was on assessee that no wilful intention for not filing ITR

Held: Assessee who had taxable income for the Financial Year 2012 – 2013, had not filed the Annual Return under Section 139(1) nor under section 1 39 (4). It had received substantial income in the form of salary amounting to Rs.68,71,73 1/- and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual funds and with respect to credit card transactions. Revenue contended that owing to non-filing of the Income Tax Returns, suspicions had arisen over the source of funds for such transactions and several Show Cause Notices had been issued, but there was no reply by assessee herein. Revenue further contended that assessee had deliberately not filed the Income Tax Returns within the stipulated period and therefore, Revenue was not able to assess the income for the escaped assessment, for which the Return should have been submitted. Assessee herein had committed offences under Section 276CC and 276C, a complaint had been preferred before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate / EO-I, Egmore, Chennai, which had been taken cognizance. It was held that  assesseee had laid the blame on his previous employer stating that there had been a mismatch in the income earned as given in Form 16 and as uploaded in Form 26AS. It had also been stated that this was not brought to the knowledge of assessee since he had left. Even though the Show Cause Notices had been received, he was under the bona fide impression that since tax had been paid, no further action was required to be clarified from his end. This Court could presume that assessee herein was innocent of any of the offences complained. It was for assessee to establish such innocence. The platform for establishing such innocence was the Court where the trial was to be conducted and in the present case, that particular Court was the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/EO-I, Egmore, Chennai. A direction was given to Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/EO-I, Egmore, Chennai, to commence trial and to complete the same on or before 31.01.2022.

FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER of MADRAS HIGH COURT

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.