Section 276CC prosecution and mens rea presumption: late return, Section 139(4), and Section 153A issues require trial.

Prosecution under Section 276CC turns on failure to furnish a return within the time prescribed by Section 139(1), and whether that failure was wilful is a factual question for trial. Section 278E(1) raises a presumption of culpable mental state, so the accused must rebut mens rea. A return filed under Section 139(4) does not by itself extinguish liability under Section 276CC, and the proviso to that section does not require completion of assessment in every case. Any impact of Section 153A proceedings, and the relationship between assessed and returned income, also requires factual inquiry. The complaint was therefore not quashed and the accused was directed to face trial.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complaint alleging offence under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 should be quashed on the grounds that mens rea was absent, a return had been filed under Section 139(4), the proviso to Section 276CC was attracted, and subsequent proceedings under Section 153A affected the prosecution.

Analysis: The liability under Section 276CC arises from failure to furnish the return within the time prescribed under Section 139(1), and whether such failure was wilful depends on facts that require proof at trial. Section 278E(1) creates a presumption of culpable mental state in such prosecutions, and the burden to prove absence of mens rea lies on the accused. A return filed under Section 139(4) does not, by itself, negate the offence under Section 276CC. The proviso to Section 276CC does not mean that an assessment must always be completed before the provision can apply. The effect, if any, of proceedings under Section 153A and the relation between assessed income and returned income also involve factual inquiry unsuitable for summary interference.

Conclusion: The complaint was not liable to be quashed and the petitioner was required to face trial.

---