2026 (5) TMI 186

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s filed this Quash Petition. 2.Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.03.2018 declaring the tax and interest liability of Rs. 5,95,616/- but not paid any tax liability at the time of filing the return. Such non payment of admitted tax constitutes a wilful default to evade payment of tax attracting prosecution under Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire complaint proceeds on erroneous understanding of the scope of Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. As per Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961, criminalisation arises only if wilful attempt to ev....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... this case, the sanction for prosecution was granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 279(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the sanction granted mechanically without proper application of mind to the essential ingredients of the offence. The respondent relies upon the presumption under Section 278E of Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to culpable mental state. Such presumption can arise only when the foundational facts constituting the offence are established. In the absence of any act indicating evasion, the presumption under Section 278E of Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be invoked. Further, resorting to criminal prosecution solely on the ground of non-payment admitted tax amounts to misuse of criminal process. In support o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Act, 1961 issued. The total demand determined is Rs. 1,91,43,523/- inclusive of tax and applicable interest. Admittedly, the petitioner not paid any portion of the said demand till date. The failure to discharge both admitted tax and subsequently crystallised demand demonstrates a continuous and deliberate default, attracting the ingredients of Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961. She further submitted that the petitioner failed to file any appeal for more than six years against the assessment order, thus, the assessment order reached finality in 2019 and penalty proceedings also concluded. In this case, the trial is about to come end. At this stage, the petitioner filed appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) with extrao....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... established ant the burden lies on the accused to rebut the same. In the present case, the foundational facts of tax liability and continued non-payment stand clearly established. Once non-payment and liability are shown, mens rea is presumed, and the burden shifts to the accused to disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. Failing to do so before the trial Court, thereafter filing this petition to quash the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C./528 BNSS is not permissible. The points raised by the petitioner are factual and it is for the trial Court to appreciate during evidence. The sanction under Section 279 of Income Tax Act, 1961 accorded after careful consideration of relevant facts and materials and on application of mind independently. ....