TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Court rules in favor of applicant, no liability under section 276CC Income-tax Act. Complaint cases quashed.</h1> <h3>ROSHAN LAL Versus SPECIAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER</h3> ROSHAN LAL Versus SPECIAL CHIEF JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE AND ANOTHER - [2010] 322 ITR 353 (All) Issues:Quashing of proceedings under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding late filing of income tax returns by a Hindu undivided family and the liability of the son for the offense under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act.Analysis:Issue 1: Liability for late filing of income tax returns by a Hindu undivided familyThe complaint alleged that the income-tax returns for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82 were not submitted on time by a Hindu undivided family, leading to an offense under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act. The responsibility was placed on the karta of the family, Ram Lal, and his son, Roshan Lal, was accused of connivance under section 278C(2) of the Act. The defense argued that as per section 140 of the Income-tax Act, the karta is primarily liable for filing returns. It was contended that Roshan Lal's participation in income-tax proceedings post the filing deadline does not establish connivance or consent in the offense. The court agreed, emphasizing that mere involvement after the offense date does not implicate Roshan Lal in the late filing, leading to the conclusion that no liability can be imposed on him under section 278C(2) of the Act.Issue 2: Quashing of Complaint CasesThe court examined the arguments presented by both parties. The Income-tax Department contended that Roshan Lal, being aware of the karta's illness during the filing period, was complicit in the late submission of returns. However, the court found this argument unsubstantiated in the complaints. It was noted that the complaints did not mention any transfer of liability from the ill karta to Roshan Lal. The court held that Roshan Lal's involvement in income-tax proceedings post the filing deadline does not establish his consent or connivance in the offense. Consequently, the court allowed the application under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, quashing Complaint Cases Nos. 2302 and 2303 of 1987 against Roshan Lal.In conclusion, the court ruled in favor of the applicant, determining that no liability could be imposed on Roshan Lal for the offense under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act. The complaints against him were deemed improper and were consequently quashed.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
