TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (7) TMI 197
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....liable under section 276CC of the Act, 1961. 2. In E. O. C. C. No. 95 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date, i.e., on August 31, 1996, but filed only on March 24, 1999 with a delay of 2 years and 7 months ; in E. O. C. C. No. 96 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date, i.e., on October 31, 1997, but filed only on March 26, 2001 with a delay of 41 months and in E. O. C. C. No. 94 of 2005, a complaint was filed for not filing the returns before the statutory due date, i.e., on November 30, 1998 but filed only on March 26, 2001 with a delay of 28 months. 3. On the side of the prosecution, three witnesses were examined as P.Ws.1 t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r committed wilful default in filing the returns and even P.Ws.1 to 3 have not let in any evidence that there was a wilful default on the part of the petitioner in not filing the income-tax returns within the due date. Per contra, the learned senior special public prosecutor for income-tax cases submitted that 276CC of the Act is attracted if there is a default in filing the returns within the statutory due date as per section 139(1) or if there is default as per section 142(1) or if there is default even after issuing notice under section 148 of the Act. The petitioner would not be exonerated from the offence committed by him for not filing the income-tax returns within the statutory period prescribed as per section 139(1) of the Act, b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e ground that there was a mis joinder of charges and there was defect in framing of charge in violation of sections 218 and 219 of the Criminal Procedure Code. As per the decision reported in Sudarshan Jain v. Asst. CIT [2004] 270 ITR 312 (P&H), the proceedings against the accused were quashed for the reason that the penalties imposed on the accused under section 271(1)(C) of the Act were struck down by the Tribunal and as such, the criminal prosecution would be only an idle and empty formality. 12. Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act reads as follows : "If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of fringe benefits which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 115WD or by notice given under sub-sec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... page 10 has held as follows : "The heading of the section or the marginal note may be relied upon to clear any doubt or ambiguity in the interpretation of the pro-vision and to discern the legislative intent. In CIT v. Ahmedbhai Umarbhai and Co., AIR 1950 SC 134 ; [1950] 18 ITR 472, after refer-ring to the view expressed by Lord Macnaghten in Balraj Kunwar v. Jagatpal Singh [1904] ILR 26 All 393 (PC), it was held that marginal notes in an Indian statute, as in an Act of Parliament cannot be refer-red to for the purpose of construing the statute. Similar view was expressed in Board of Muslim Wakfs v. Radha Kishan [1979] 2 SCC 468 and Kalawatibai v. Soiryabai, AIR 1991 SC 1581. Marginal notes certainly cannot control the meaning of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....shing of a return within the time indicated therein. That means the infractions which are covered by section 276CC relate to non-furnishing of return within the time in terms of sub-section (1) or indicated in the notice given under sub-section (2) of section 139. There is no condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of sub-section (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under sub-section (1) or (2) of section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under section 139(4) much later. This cannot certainly be the legislative intent. Another plea which was urged with some amount of vehemence was that the provisions of section 276CC are ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n (2). The time limit was provided in clause (b). Section 276CC refers to "due time" in relation to sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 139 and not to sub-section (4). Had the Legislature intended to cover sub-section (4) also, use of the expression 'section 139' alone would have sufficed. It can-not be said that the Legislature without any purpose or intent specified only sub-sections (1) and (2) and the conspicuous omission of sub-section (4) has no meaning or purpose behind it. Sub-section (4) of section 139 cannot by any stretch of imagination control the operation of sub-section (1) wherein a fixed period for furnishing the return is stipulated. The mere fact that for the purposes of assessment and carrying forward and to set off losse....