TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
CONSEQUENCES OF NON-FILING/DELAYED FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ONSEQUENCES OF NON-FILING/DELAYED FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURNS<br>By: - DR.MARIAPPAN GOVINDARAJAN<br>Income Tax<br>Dated:- 13-2-2025<br>The Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short) makes it mandatory that every assessee is liable to pay tax on the self-assessment basis and to file the required returns within the time prescribed time limit as fixed in the Act. If there is a delay in filing the return the assessee is pay to interest along with the tax payable. Even the assessee is liable to pay penalty under Chapter XXI of the Act. Chapter XXII of the Act, besides interest and penalty, provides for the prosecution of the assessee. Therefore, the levy of penalty and prosecution are the consequences of non-filing of delayed filing income tax retu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rns. If the assessee fails to file the return within the time due, the rigour would be attracted. In SHRI C.P. YOGESHWARA, SON OF PUTTAMADEGOWDA VERSUS THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (4) , BANGALORE - 2017 (1) TMI 1792 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT, the complaint was filed under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after obtaining prior sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax in accordance with the provisions of Section 279 of the Act alleging violation of Section 276 CC of the Act by the petitioner. As a result, a notice came to be issued to the petitioner under Section 153 of the Act calling upon him to file his return and in spite of the notice, the accused had not filed h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....is return in response thereto. The Commissioner of Income Tax who had accorded the sanction, had proceeded on the basis that no return had been filed as sought for in this case. The High Court observed that the petitioner had already filed his return of income as on the date of the order of sanction, which had gone unnoticed, is not in dispute and the learned counsel for the respondent would endorse the same. The tenor of Section 276 CC of the Act contemplates that if a person has failed to furnish the return of income in time, it is then that the rigour of the section would be attracted. For, if the return of income had been filed belatedly or otherwise, the section cannot apply at all and therefore, the prosecution ranged against the pet....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itioner is vitiated. Consequently, the High Court allowed the petition. In RAJKUMAR AGARWAL VERSUS INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BIDAR. - 2025 (2) TMI 237 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT the Department filed complaints against the petitioner for non-filing of Income tax returns for the 4 assessment years beginning from 2012-13. The petitioner filed present criminal petitions challenging the impugned criminal proceedings pending before the court of II Addl. Civil Judge & JMFC-II, Bidar in C.C. No. 2056/2019, C.C. No. 2334/2019, C.C. No. 2333/2019 and C.C. No. 2332/2019 registered against the petitioner for offence punishable under section 276CC of the Act. The petitioner submitted the following before the High Court- * on receipt of notice under section....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 139 of the Act of 1961, petitioner had submitted his income tax returns for the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. * The petitioner paid the penalties imposed on him for the delayed filing of income tax returns. * Therefore, the Department cannot initiate criminal prosecution as against the petitioner for the alleged offence. * The petitioner was not granted an opportunity by the competent authority before issuing the sanction order. * The delay in filing the returns was beyond the control of the petitioner since his brothers had died during the relevant period. The Department submitted the following before the High Court- * there was a delay in filing the income tax returns for the period from 2012-13 to 2015-16, by the petit....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ioner. * Even the petitioner had submitted the income tax returns, it will not exonerate him from criminal prosecution. * There is a presumption against the petitioner available under section 278E of the Income Tax act which is required to be rebutted by the petitioner in accordance with law before the learned Magistrate. * There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned criminal proceedings. The High Court heard the submissions of both the parties. The High Court observed that the petitioner did not file any return for the four assessment years. On receipt of notices, he filed the said returns belatedly. He also paid the penalties levied on the petitioner by the Department. The offence under Section 276CC is attracted on fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ilure to comply with the provisions of Section 139 (1) or failure to respond to the notice issued under Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act, within the time specified therein. Section 276CC takes in sub-section 1 of Section 139, Section 142 (1) (i) and Section 148 of the Act. The High Court analysed the provisions of Section 276CC and Section 278 E of the Act. From a reading of Section 278E of the Act, the High Court observed that it is apparent that there is a presumption available as against the accused and the Court before which proceedings are initiated for offence punishable under section 276CC is required to raise a presumption against the accused. it is for the accused assessee to successfully rebut the said presumption by produc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ing necessary material before the said court, failing which he shall be liable to be punished. The question before the Trial Court is whether there was a willful and deliberate delay on the part of the petitioner-assessee in submitting the Income Tax Returns and in view of the said presumption under Section 278E, it is for the accused to prove before the Trial Court that he had no such mental state and rebut the presumption. The High Court considered the submissions of the Department that the sanctioning Authority, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax before according sanction as provided under Section 279 (1) of the Act of 1961 had issued Show Cause Notice to the petitioner-assessee granting an opportunity to file his objection and t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....here after objections filed by the petitioner were considered and disposed of by a Speaking Order. Therefore the High Court rejected the contentions of the petitioner that he was not heard by the Competent Authority before issuing the sanction order to prosecute him for alleged offence. The Court in a prosecution of offence, like Section 276CC has to presume the existence of mens rea and it is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt. The petitioner fails to prove the circumstances which prevented them from filing the returns as per Section 139 (1) or in response to notices under Sections 142 and 148 of the Act. It is for the petitioner to lead evidence and produce necessary material before the learned Mag....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....istrate in support of his defence and rebutt the presumption available against him under Section 278E of the Act. The High Court was of the opinion that the petitions lack merit and they are liable to be dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to raise all such grounds before the learned Magistrate in support of his defence. The High Court dismissed the criminal petitions.<br> Scholarly articles for knowledge sharing by authors, experts, professionals ....