Case Law Details
Jay Polychem India Ltd. Vs ACIT (Delhi High Court)
The offence under Section 276CC 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 276CC, 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. They may eventually have a bearing for the benefit of proviso to Section 276CC to be invoked but not so as to inhibit continuation of the criminal process.
In the present case, there was a breach even in compliance with the notice under Section 142 (1), which by the same logic as indicated above, constitutes distinct offence.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER / JUDGMENT
1. On the criminal complaint (CC no. 81/2004) instituted by the respondent on 27.10.2014, the Metropolitan Magistrate, by his order dated 03.11.2014, took cognizance of the offence under Section 276 CC read with Section 278 B of Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) and issued summons to the petitioners calling them upon to appear as accused. By the petition at hand, the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) is invoked to assail the said summoning order primarily on the ground that the proceedings are in the nature of abuse of the process of law, there having been no breach of the provisions of law so as to constitute an offence under Section 276 CC, the income tax return (ITR) for the relevant assessment year (AY) 2012-13 corresponding to the financial year 2011-2012 having been submitted on 19.03.2014, there being a case made out as per the claim of the petitioners, for refund, rather than any income tax liability.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
