Section 279(1)

Section 279(1) — the law in short

What the courts have decided on section 279(1), 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.
• Saumya Chaurasia v Union of India High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  CBDT Circular 24/2019 says prosecution under s.276C(1) is to be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty. My appeal is still before the CIT(A). Can the sanction under s.279(1) be quashed on that ground?
  Not where the amount sought to be evaded exceeds Rs.25 lakh. On the Delhi High Court's reading of Circular No.24/2019 dated 09.09.2019 as clarified by Circular No.5/2020 dated 23.01.2020, the requirement of prior administrative approval of a collegium of two CCIT/DGIT rank officers, and the direction that prosecution be launched only after the ITAT confirms the penalty, are addressed to cases at or below the Rs.25 lakh threshold; above it the approval of the sanctioning authority, the Principal Commissioner, suffices and no pre-condition is attached. The challenge to Circular 5/2020 under Article 14 was rejected.
• Vilas Babanrao Kalokhe v Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Pune High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I filed my return but could not pay the self-assessment tax with it. I paid it a couple of months later. They have prosecuted me under s.276C(2). Can that stand?
  On these facts, no. The Bombay High Court quashed the complaint and the order issuing process, holding that s.276C(2) punishes a wilful attempt to evade payment of tax and not a mere failure to pay, and that the averments in the complaint fell short of any inference of wilfulness where the assessee had pleaded financial difficulty and had in fact paid the tax with interest.
• Raj Kumar Kedia v Income Tax Office High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My prosecution sanction under s.279(1) was signed by the Principal Director of Income Tax (Investigation), not the Principal Commissioner. Is the sanction bad, and can I say the complaint is premature because no assessment has been made?
  Neither point succeeded. 'Commissioner' in s.279 is read with the definition in s.2(16) and the hierarchy in s.116, so it means and includes the Director and the Principal Director of Income Tax; a sanction by the Principal Director (Investigation) is by a competent authority under a different nomenclature. The complaint is not premature merely because assessment proceedings had not been completed, P. Jayappan being applied.
• ITO v MKY Constructions P Ltd High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We paid the whole TDS default with interest before the complaint was filed. Can we still be prosecuted under s.276B?
  Not where a reasonable cause for the failure is made out. The Delhi High Court refused the department leave to appeal against an acquittal in three prosecutions under section 276B read with section 278B. Section 278AA carves out an express exception to penal liability under section 276B where the accused establishes a reasonable cause for the failure to deposit. The trial court had found that the company's default was driven by a liquidity crisis caused by legally recoverable payments withheld by contracting parties, that the entire defaulted tax had been deposited with interest under section 201(1A) and late fee under section 234E, and that the default was not deliberate. The High Court held that finding neither perverse nor legally infirm, and declined to disturb it.
• Rajkumar Agarwal v Income Tax Department High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  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.
• Sree Metaliks Limited v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  We deposited the TDS late, with interest, and the Department accepted it — then launched a s.276B prosecution against the company and its directors. Can the complaint be quashed?
  On this judgment, yes, where the delay is explained. The Orissa High Court quashed a s.276B read with s.278B prosecution for delays of between 15 and 394 days in FY 2019-20, holding the delay well explained by the company's insolvency resolution process and the COVID-19 restrictions, and noting that the prosecution had been launched only after the Department had received the TDS along with interest. It followed the Jharkhand High Court in Dev Multicom and its own earlier decision in D.N. Homes.
• A.M. Enterprises v State of Jharkhand High CourtHelps taxpayerSuperseded by amendment
  I paid the TDS with interest before sanction and no penalty was ever levied. Can they prosecute?
  On this combination of facts, no. The High Court quashed the s.276B/278B prosecution because the tax with interest had been deposited before sanction under s.279(1), no penalty proceedings had ever been initiated, and the delay was explained. If a cancelled penalty destroys the basis of a prosecution, the position is stronger where no penalty was ever adjudicated at all.
• Sada Kesava Reddy v Dy CIT High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  My belated return showed a refund due, so no tax was payable on regular assessment and the proviso to s.276CC protects me. Can I be discharged on that ground before trial?
  Not on this authority. The Telangana High Court held that whether the accused was entitled to a refund, whether there was wilful failure to furnish the return in due time, and whether the notice was validly served are all matters to be decided only after a full trial, and refused to interfere with the dismissal of the discharge application. It also applied the settled position that the benefit of the proviso is available only to a voluntary return under s.139(1) filed before the failure is detected, and not once a notice under s.142(1)(i) or s.148 has been issued.
• Suresh Kumar Agarwal v Union of India High CourtHelps taxpayer
  I filed my post-search return late, paid the tax with interest, no penalty was ever levied and the additions were deleted in appeal. Can the section 276CC prosecution still go on?
  No. The Jharkhand High Court quashed the prosecution as an abuse of the process of law. Three things weighed with the Court: the department had accepted the return with interest, and where the officer levies interest it must be presumed that he extended the time for filing, which excludes wilful default; no penalty proceeding under section 271(1)(a) had been initiated at all, though the provision was available; and the first appellate authority had by order dated 3 July 2019 set aside the whole of the protective assessment. Applying Gopal Ji Shaw, Gujarat Travancore Agency, Autofil, G.L. Didwania and K.C. Builders, the Court held mens rea could not be made out and quashed the complaint and the cognizance order.
• Indo Arya Central Transport Ltd v CIT (TDS) High CourtHelps departmentValidity unconfirmed
  The Commissioner has sanctioned my prosecution under s.276B without dealing with my explanation that a cash crunch and the department's own withheld refunds caused the delay. Can I have the sanction quashed in a writ petition?
  Not on these facts. The Delhi High Court held that a financial crunch, pending refunds and a delay of less than twelve months are ex facie factual matters which may constitute the defence of reasonable cause under s.278AA, but that the onus of proving reasonable cause lies on the person being prosecuted and the place to discharge it is the criminal trial, not a writ petition. A sanction under s.279(1) is open to judicial review only in a limited way, to see that the authority acted fairly and reasonably, and the court will not sit as an appellate forum over it.
• Homi Phiroz Ranina v State of Maharashtra High CourtHelps taxpayerValidity unconfirmed
  I am a non-executive director. The complaint under s.276B read with s.278B says only that I was in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of its business. Is that enough to put me on trial?
  No. The Bombay High Court held that a bare averment reciting the words of s.278B, with no material showing that the director was in fact in charge of the company's affairs and responsible for the conduct of its day to day business, does not disclose a prima facie case, and process should not have issued against such a director. The applicants, who were non-executive directors and two of whom were practising advocates who could not in law act as full-time directors, were discharged.

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.