2025 (8) TMI 1807

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rties agree that issue raised in both the petitions are similar. 2. This Criminal Writ Petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (Cr.P.C.) seeks quashing and setting aside of C.C. 214/SW/17 dated 23 May 2017 filed by respondent No. 1 for offence under Section 276CC read with 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). 3. The above complaint is filed for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. 4. It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner has not filed his return of income for Assessment Year 2011-2012 under Section 139(1) of the Act but same was filed under Section 139(4) of the Act. According to the complaint since the return is not filed under Section 139(1) of the Act an offence under Section 276CC of the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot and should not entertain the present petition. He further relied upon the case of the Supreme Court in the case os Sasi Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2014] 361 ITR 163 (SC), and submitted that prima facie case has been made by the Revenue on the basis of which complaint is filed and the petitioner would be free to argue all the points raised before the learned Magistrate. But at this stage the proceedings cannot be stalled. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent. 8. Under Section 276 CC, whether the failure to furnish return within time prescribed under Section 139(1) was willful or not is an issue which would require examination of the facts which led to delay in filing of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ttracting provisions of Section 276 CC of the Act. 11. Section 276CC provides for failure to furnish the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Admittedly, in the instant case return is not filed under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the offence is said to have been committed on the failure to furnish the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Therefore, the contention that the petitioner has filed his return of income prior to any detection is not acceptable. The decision relied upon by the revenue in the case of Sasi Enterprises (supra) in turn refers to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr. vs Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr. (2004) 266 ITR 1 in which it is held that return filed under Se....