What the courts have decided on section 142(1)(i), in one screen. Read this first; open an entry when you need the facts, the reasoning and the source.
-
Sasi Enterprises v ACIT
Supreme CourtHelps department
The firm never filed its returns and the assessments were made under s.144. Can we get the s.276CC complaint discharged because the assessment was still being fought?
No. The Supreme Court held that the s.276CC offence is complete on the failure to furnish the return in due time and is unrelated to the pendency of the assessment. The proviso does not help unless the return was furnished before the end of the assessment year or the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, less advance tax and TDS, is within the statutory figure — and by s.278E the court presumes the culpable mental state, leaving it to the accused to displace it beyond reasonable doubt.
-
Rajkumar Agarwal v Income Tax Department
High CourtHelps departmentNo later treatment found
I filed my returns late but only after a notice, and I paid the penalty for the delay. Does the proviso to s.276CC save me, and can I get the prosecution quashed by explaining the delay?
No on both counts. The proviso to s.276CC refers only to a return under s.139(1); s.142(1)(i) and s.148 are conspicuously absent from it, so the benefit is available only to voluntary filing and not to a return filed after the failure has been detected and a notice issued. Payment of penalty under Chapter XXI does not exonerate the assessee from prosecution under Chapter XXII, and because s.278E requires the court to presume the culpable mental state, the explanation for the delay must be led as evidence before the Magistrate and cannot be accepted at the quashing stage.
-
Manav Menon v Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
High CourtHelps taxpayer
I never filed my return for the year and the department has launched a prosecution, but my TDS and advance tax more than covered the tax and I am actually due a refund. Can the criminal case go on?
No. The Madras High Court quashed the prosecution under section 276CC. Clause (ii)(b) of the proviso says a person shall not be proceeded against for failure to furnish the return under section 139(1) if the tax payable on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by advance tax paid and tax deducted at source, does not exceed Rs 3,000. Here the petitioner's advance tax, TDS, TCS and self-assessment tax came to Rs 23,75,066 against total tax and interest of Rs 23,74,610, leaving a refund of Rs 460 claimed. The proviso came to his rescue and the complaint in EOCC No. 168 of 2016 was quashed.
Listed strongest first: Supreme Court, then High Court, then Tribunal, then CBDT. Nothing here has yet been read in full by a chartered accountant — open an entry to see where it came from.
