Court quashes criminal prosecution under Income-tax Act, citing lack of wilful failure.

The court quashed the criminal prosecution against the petitioner under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act for failure to furnish the return of income by the due date. The court found that there was no wilful failure on the petitioner's part to file the return on time, as supported by the circumstances and the Assessing Officer's observations. The court deemed the prosecution to be an abuse of process and granted the petitioner's application to quash the proceedings, emphasizing that justice required dismissal due to the uncontested reasons for the delay in filing the return.

---

---

Issues:
1. Prosecution under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act for failure to furnish return of income by due date.
2. Quashing of criminal prosecution sought by the petitioner.
3. Allegations of concealment of income for assessment year 1982-83.

Analysis:
The petitioner, an income-tax assessee, faced prosecution under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act for not submitting the return of income by the due date as required under section 139 of the Act. The petitioner sought to quash the criminal prosecution pending before the Special Court (Economic Offences), Muzaffarpur. The petitioner argued that he did not wilfully fail to furnish the return of income by the due date, contending that the notice under section 139(2) was served, and the due date for filing the return would be within thirty days from the date of service. The petitioner had applied for an extension of time for filing the return as the books of account were seized with the income-tax authorities. The Assessing Officer's observations in the assessment order supported the petitioner's claim that there was no wilful failure on his part to submit the return by the due date.

The court found that the most crucial element for prosecution under section 276CC, i.e., wilful failure on the part of the assessee to file the return by the due date, was missing in this case. The court concluded that the criminal prosecution of the petitioner was an abuse of the court's process, and quashing it was necessary to serve the ends of justice. Therefore, the court allowed the application seeking to quash the criminal prosecution against the petitioner, based on the undisputed facts presented regarding the petitioner's inability to file the return of income by the due date due to circumstances beyond his control.

---