Case Law Details
Karan Luthra Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
The offence under Section 276 CC of IT Act deals with failure to comply with the obligation under Sections 139 (1) or 142(1) or 148 of IT Act. Disobedience of each said provision of law itself constitutes a distinct offence. The offence under Section 276 CC, prima facie, stood constituted upon failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the return of income for the assessment year in question within the period prescribed in law. The notices by the assessing authority under Section 142 (1) were issued with the objective of facilitating best judgment assessment. The failure to abide by such notices would also constitute offence, distinct from the offence that had been earlier committed by virtue of breach of Section 139 (1). The assessment proceedings are not related to these criminal prosecutions.
The evidence of complainant had shown disobedience of Section 139 (1) by failure on the part of the assessee to furnish the return of income. The notice under Section 142 (1) which had been served had also not been complied with. This added to the gravity and to the reasons for filing of the criminal prosecution. The subsequent notice (Ex.PW-2/5) cannot prima facie be read so as to supersede the previous notice (Ex.PW-2/4) particularly to have the effect of giving to the assessee indefinite period for compliance since that can never be the intention of the law or of the process issued thereunder. The fact that the assessee had subsequently furnished the return of income for AY 2003-04 on 24.10.2007 can also not take away from the fact that he had incurred the liability to be prosecuted earlier on account of failure to furnish the income-tax return within the stipulated period.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. The respondent in the first and second captioned petitions (the complainant) is the assessing authority in respect of the petitioner in the first and second captioned petitions (the accused), under the Income Tax Act, 1961. It appears to be an undisputed case that the petitioner had failed to submit his return of income-tax for assessment years (AY) 2003-2004, 2004-2005 and 2005-2006, within the time stipulated for the purpose, under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). In the wake of this fact and certain subsequent notices, including under Section 142 (1) and 148 of IT Act, prosecutions were launched by filing of criminal complaints, each alleging offence punishable under Sections 276 CC of IT Act having been committed qua different assessment years by him, they including criminal complaint no. 42/4 (respecting AY 2003-04), no. 41/4 (respecting AY 2004-05) and no. 43/4 (respecting AY 2005-06). The Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (ACMM) took cognizance on each of the said criminal complaints and issued process summoning him as accused. When the case reached the stage of consideration of the question of charge, in the wake of pre-charge evidence, the same was resisted. By separate orders passed in each case on 27.11.2015, the trial Magistrate repelled objections of the accused and ordered charge to be framed separately for each assessment year on the said complaint.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
