Consent or connivance for return-filing default must exist at the time of default; later participation is insufficient.

A member of a Hindu undivided family could not be fastened with criminal liability for delayed filing of income-tax returns where the filing duty under section 140 rested on the karta. The offence under section 276CC was complete on expiry of the prescribed time, and section 278C(2) required the complaint to allege consent or connivance by the applicant when the default occurred. Because the complaint disclosed no factual basis showing that the applicant had assumed the filing obligation or participated in the default before the due date, later participation in tax proceedings was insufficient. The complaint proceedings were therefore quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant, a member of a Hindu undivided family, could be proceeded against for delay in filing income-tax returns on the basis of consent or connivance under section 278C(2) of the Income-tax Act, where the returns were required to be filed by the karta and the alleged involvement of the applicant arose only after the due date.

Analysis: The liability to file the return primarily rested on the karta under section 140 of the Income-tax Act. The offence under section 276CC was treated as complete on the expiry of the time prescribed for filing the return. To attract section 278C(2), the complaint had to disclose consent or connivance by the applicant at the time the offence was committed. The complaint did not allege any factual basis showing that the applicant had assumed the filing obligation before the due date or had participated in the default at the relevant time. Mere participation in subsequent income-tax proceedings or filing of statements after the default had already occurred was insufficient to fasten criminal liability.

Conclusion: The applicant could not be made liable under section 278C(2) for the offence under section 276CC, and the complaint proceedings against him were liable to be quashed.

---