Delhi District Court
Income Tax Office (Ito) vs Gagan Alagh on 22 May, 2024
1 of 19
IN THE COURT OF MAYANK MITTAL
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts)
CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Income Tax Office vs. Gagan Alagh
CC No. : 5096/2019
CNR No. : DLCT02-012051-2019
Date of Institution : 26.04.2019
Name of the complainant : Income Tax Office (ITO),
its registered office Through Sh. Deepak Hooda
ITO, Ward-53(4), New
Delhi.
Name of accused : Sh. Gagan Alagh
their parentage and address etc. S/o Sh. Bunde Shah Alagh
R/o C/826, Arjun Nagar,
Kotla Mubarakpur,
New Delhi.
Offence complained of : U/s. 276CC of
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Date of reserving Judgment : 18.05.2024
Plea of accused : Not guilty
Final Judgment : 22.05.2024
Brief facts and reasons for decision of the case:-
1 The factual matrix of the complaint filed by Income Tax
Office (in short 'ITO') is that the accused had depostied
cash of Rs.12,29,600 during the demonetization period,
which clearly shows that accused had taxable income
accused was legally bound to file return of income for the
A.Y. 2017-18, however, accused had not filed the return of
income. A notice dated 09.03.2018 under Section 142(1) of
The Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'The
Act' ) had issued to the accused for filing his return of
income for the A.Y. 2017-18, however, accused had failed
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
2 of 19
to file his return. A proposal for grant of sanction dated
28.01.2019 was sent to Principal Commissioner of Income
Tax. Before issuance of sanction, a show cause notice dated
01.02.2019 under Section 276CC of The Act was issued to
the accused and in response to the same Advocate Sh. S.M.
Bhardwaj appeared on behalf of accused and on his request
matter was adjourned for 18.02.2019 and again on
18.02.2019 on request of AR of accused, matter was
adjourned for 21.02.2019. On 21.02.2019, the AR of
accused vide his reply dated 18.02.2019 stated that assessee
was doing business of dairy products in which 99% of
business is on cash basis and used to deposit cash in the
bank on daily basis. That AR of the accused also furnished
copy of ITR for A.Y. 2017-18 claimed to be filed on
28.07.2017. However, vide order dated 21.02.2019, the AR
of accused was made clear that the return of the accused
filed outside jurisdiction, which would be treated as non-est
return. After considering the same to the accused, the
Principal CIT-18, New Delhi, passed a sanction order under
Section 279(1) for filing complaint under Section 276CC of
The Act against accused giving permission for launching
prosecution against accused and directed the Assessing
Officer, the Income Tax Officer, Ward-53(4), New Delhi, to
file the present complaint u/s 276CC of The Act.
2 The present complaint was filed by ITO through its officer
Sh. Deepak Hooda i.e. a public servant who filed the
complaint in his official capacity and in discharge of his
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
3 of 19
duties, therefore, in terms of proviso (a) of Section 200
Cr.P.C., the examination of AR of complainant in pre-
summoning evidence was dispensed with. Upon
consideration of complaint and documents annexed
therewith, cognizance of offence under Section 276CC of
The Act was taken and accused was summoned. Upon
appearance, the accused was supplied copies. Upon hearing
the rival submissions and considering the material available
on record, notice was framed against the accused onn
29.11.2019 for offence punishable under Section 276CC of
The Act to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed
trial.
3 I have heard the rival contentions advanced by the Ld. SPP
for the complainant and also by Ld. Defence counsel. Prior
to delving into the contentions advanced on behalf of the
parties, let us briefly discuss the testimonies of witnesses
examined in complainant's evidence:-
3.1 CW-1:- was the complainant in the present case and
filed the complaint under Section 276CC of The Income
Tax Act along with list of witnesses (Ex. CW 1/2 and
Ex. CW 1/3 respectively) upon receiving of sanction
under Section 279(1) of The Act dated 07.03.2019
issued by Sh. Prashant Bhushan, Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax Ex. CW 1/1 intimating
that the accused has not furnished return of income for
A.Y. 2017-18. CW-1 deposed that notice dated
09.03.2018 under Section 142(1) of The Act Ex. CW
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
4 of 19
1/4 was issued to accused by his Predecessor Sh. Raju
Kumar Datta. That in this proposal dated 28.01.2019
Ex. CW 1/5 for sanction to lauch prosecution against
accused was sent to PCIT-18, Civic Centre, New Delhi.
Thereafter, Sh. Prashant Bhushan, PCIT-18, New Delhi,
after considering the entire case and proposal issued a
show cause notice dated 01.02.2019 Ex. CW 1/6. CW-1
stated that in response to the said notice accused
requested for an adjournment on 13.02.2019 and
18.02.2019 and on 21.02.2019, the AR of accused
submitted a reply Ex. CW 1/7 (dated 18.02.2019) to the
said notice stating that accused is doing the business of
dairy products and 99% of the business is on cash basis
and he used to deposit the case in the bank on the daily
basis. That accused had furnished the copy of ITR for
the A.Y. 2017-18 claimed to be filed on 28.07.2017 with
ITO Ward-70(4) Ex. CW 1/8. CW-1 further stated that
on 21.02.2019, the AR of accused was made aware that
the accused had filed his return outside jurisdiction and
same would be treated as a non-est return vide
ordersheet of PCIT Ex. CW 1/9. That on 27.12.2019
assessment order Ex. CW 1/10 was passed by CW-1 and
also issued a notice of demand Ex. CW 1/11 under
Section 156 of The Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 for a sum
of Rs.5,15,030/-.
3.1.1 In his cross examination CW-1 has stated that
he did not remember the exact date of the filing of
the complaint, however, CW-1 deposed that the date
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
5 of 19
of filing of this complaint was sometime on March
18. That he received the sanction from PCIT-18 and
aware about the proceedings recorded before official
and in respect of notice dated 09.03.2018 and
01.02.2019. CW-1 denied the suggestion that
accused has filed income tax return for A.Y. 2017-
18, however, voluntarily stated that assessee has
claimed that he had filed income tax return for A.Y.
2017-18 manually in some other income tax ward
which was treated as non-est by PCIT-18 as it was
not filed in correct office and as per income tax
proceeding the income tax return filed by assessee
was not taken as valid. CW-1 admitted that he had
gone through the income tax returns filed by the
assessee and found errors in the income tax returns.
That the ITR filed by assessee which came to
knowledge of CW-1 / office record after filing
prosecution. CW-1 admitted that he had issued
notice to the assessee in respect of error of income
tax return. However, stated that he did not remember
whether he had issued any notice to assessee in
respect of error in filing the income tax return and
stated that he had attached the ITR filed by the
assessee. Further, CW-1 deposed that he did not
remember the date on which the demand notice was
issued after filing of prosecution and further stated
that he did not remember that whether the demand
notice was issued before or after filing of this
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
6 of 19
complaint case. Voluntarily CW-1 stated that it was
issued after filing of the case. CW-1 admitted that
some other officer was dealing with this case before
he joined this office and that officer has recorded the
part proceeding of this case. CW-1 further admitted
that officer is not witness in this case who recorded
the part proceeding. CW-1 stated that he was aware
of the business of accused as on that date, at that
time accused was dealing with the mother diary
products. CW-1 denied the suggestion that he was
deposing falsely as he prepared the documents which
were incorrect and under influence without
following due procedure as the accused had already
filed the ITR on time which were duly admitted by
Income Tax Office and the accused was dealing with
the mother dairy products retail business in which he
involved 99% cash dealing. CW-1 further denied that
he had not knowingly mentioned the officer who
recorded part proceedings because no such
transparent, according to law proceedings initiated
by the complainant or the predecessor officer. CW-1
admitted that no tax dues till date on the part of
accused. CW-1 stated that he did not remember
whether any notice issued to the accused after filing
of this complaint case and also denied that he issued
the further notices to the accused during the
pendency of the case.
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
7 of 19
3.2 CW-2: Sh. Raju Kumar Datta deposed that he was
posted as ITO, Ward 53(4) during the period between
June 2017 to February 2019, which is presently Ward
53(1) and that he had jurisdiction over the case of the
accused. CW-2 deposed that on the basis of information
in ITBA system there was a case of the accused under
OCM category and it was reported that accused had
cash deposit during the demonetization period and no
return for the period was filed by the accused and there
was no record in e-filing portal for filing of return by
the assessee for F.Y. 2016-17 and in view of the non
filing of ITR despite having cash deposit, notice for
under Section 142(1) dated 09.03.2018 Ex. CW 1/4 was
issued to accused through ITBA system which was duly
served on the assessee through speed post booking
No.ED683041713IN and e-mail link with e-filing
account of the accused. CW-2 deposed that as assessee
did not submit any response either through physical
mode or through e-filing portal, proposal for launching
prosecution Ex. CW 1/5 for not filing return of income
despite having taxable income was sent through proper
channel to PCIT-18, Delhi and thereafter CW-2 was
transferred out in February 2019.
3.2.1 CW-2 in his cross examination deposed that he
did not remember the precise date of June 2017 when
he was posted as ITO, erstwhile Ward-53(4), Delhi and
his precise relieving date in February 2019. The entire
duration between June 2017 to February 2019, he was
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
8 of 19
only holding the charge of erstwhile Ward-53(4)
during the said period. CW-2 further stated that he was
transferred to erstwhile PCIT-21, Delhi charge
thereafter. That during his tenure, he had issued notice
under Section 142(1) of The Income Tax Act and
further proposal for launching prosecution as no return
of income was filed by the assessee. CW-2 stated that
he had not taken any permission from his senior
officers in respect to the proceedings against the
accused and voluntarily stated that he had jurisdiction
over the case of accused and there was no requirement
to take any permission. He further stated that he did do
not remember the exact date but he could mention the
month. It was issued in the month March 2018. The
notice was generated through ITBA system and the
same was delivered to the e-filling account of the
assessee as well as the same was sent through speed
post to the PAN database address of the assessee. CW-
2 deposed that he had not filed the receipt of the speed
post along with the complaint. However, he had
checked the delivery of the notice at that time. Further
deposed that he did not remember whether he had filed
the tracking / delivery report of the notice along with
the complaint and that none of the officer requested for
documents of this case. It is further stated by CW-2
during his tenure he had not submitted the documents
of this case to any other officer. CW-2 deposed that he
had prepared the entry of the speed post in dispatch.
He further stated that he had not submitted the dispatch
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
9 of 19
report to any other officer during his tenure and he was
not aware whether the dispatch report was a part of
judicial record or not and even did not remember the
dispatch number. CW-2 further deposed that he had no
idea if there was any hearing or proceedings conducted
in the office of Pr. CIT during his tenure and was not
called to produce any document or to participate any
hearing before the Pr. CIT during his tenure. Further
CW-2 was questioned :-
Q Have you filed any document to show as per e-
filing portal /AST Module / ITBA no data of e-filing
shown as on date of issuance of notice?
Ans. No, as there was no record of filing return of
income either in e-filing account of the assessee and in
AST Module, the same proposal sent along with
details of filing of return of the assessee.
CW-2 stated that he himself prepared the proposal.
However, he did not remember how many proposals he
prepared on that day and stated that he remembered
that the proposal was sent on same date. CW-2
deposed that he had not prepared any record that how
many proposals were submitted in a day. There was
receiving given by the Range Office as the same is
being sent through proper channel to the higher
authority. CW-2 was not aware whether the receiving
was filed along with the complaint. No officers from
the department of CW-2 was asked for the list of
proposal submitted by him in his tenure. CW-2 stated
that he was authorized and had his digital signature
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
10 of 19
and the same was only used for external
correspondence and notice Ex. CW 1/4 was digitally
signed by CW-2. The same was also physically signed
for sending it through speed post and admitted that
date is not visible at the point where the digital
signature is affixed. CW-2 stated that he was not aware
about the business of the accused and he was never the
part of the proceedings before the PCIT in the present
case and there is no other document required to
produce before this court from my side. CW-2 denied
the suggestion that he was deposing falsely under the
influence of his colleague and to protect the interest of
department and he had not prepared Ex. CW 1/4 and
Ex. CW 1/5 as attached with this case on the specific
dates or that it was prepared on later stage to file the
case before this court.
Thereafter complainant's evidence was closed on
08.12.2023.
4 Recording of statements of accused under Section 313
Cr.P.C. concluded on 20.01.2024.
5 Accused in his defence evidence examined himself as DW-
1.His testimony is as under:-
5.1 DW-1 Gagan Alagh deposed that he was working as a distributor of Mother Dairy fresh product and the goods were sale and purchase on daily basis in cash.
DW-1 stated that the margin in selling was around 3 %. DW-1 stated that he had filed his return on time as per the system followed at that point of time. He stated that CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 11 of 19 he used to submit his annual return as per the law. The mother dairy distributorship is no more existing. At the time of incident the returns were filed manually. For the year 2017-18, DW-1 has given all his details i.e. bank statement, LIC, school fee of children and miscellaneous expenses receipts to the person handling his ITR return at that point of time. After filing the ITR of 2017-2018 the concerned person give him an acknowledgement number i.e 201728072135609 dated 28.07.2017 issued by the Income Tax. DW-1 stated that he came to know about the wrong filing of his ITR when he received the notice in the present case. DW-1 immediately contacted his CA who filled the ITR and he informed DW-1 at that point of time the ITR was filled manually and it was sent in bulk and after submission the authority used to distribute it/ send it to the concerned ward from where it belongs. DW-1 further deposed that his CA also informed him that there were such similar default and it was normal because at that point of time as the ITR filing was done manually. 5.2 DW-1 in his cross examination stated that he did not have knowledge of the system of taxation but he deposited the return as he used to do it in previous years. DW-1 stated that I was aware about of the fact that every assessment year the last date of filing of ITR is 31 July and the same get extended by the Income Tax Department which is also published in media or is informed by my CA and as per knowledge of DW-1 the CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 12 of 19 last date for filing of return for 2017-2018 was extended to 31 August. DW-1 stated that he had received correspondences from the income tax department for non filing of return and he had replied to the same. In the year 2017-2018 DW-1 was using email address as [email protected]. DW-1 deposed that he had never received any such email from income tax department. DW-1 stated that he did not know if his email address registered with the income tax department. In the year 2018 DW-1 was living at C/826, Arjun Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, Delhi. DW-1 was shown notice Ex. CW1/4 and after going through the same DW-1 deposed that he had received all the notices issued by the income tax, however, he did not remember exactly about notice Ex. CW1/4. DW-1 stated that he had not filed the income tax return in the wrong jurisdiction. DW-1 stated that his CA did not inform him that return of income has been filed in the wrong office/ward. However, DW-1 came to know about the wrong filing of his ITR through a notice received from income tax department. Upon showing document Ex CW1/7, reply to the notice sent to the accused Ex CW1/6, DW-1 admitted that he had forwarded the notice Ex CW1/6 to his advocate S. M. Bhardwaj and his advocate had prepared a reply Ex. CW 1/7 and submitted it to the department. DW-1 stated that he was not sure if my advocate had visited the Income Tax office personally. However, DW-1 stated that after receipt of Ex CW1/6 and CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 13 of 19 reading the contents of the same, DW-1 had discussed the same with his advocate Sh. S. M. Bhardwaj for the purpose of filing a reply. DW-1 further deposed that he had personally met with his advocate for drafting of reply. The DW-1 has shown paragraph No.4 marked from Point A to B of Ex CW1/6, DW-1 has admitted that the fact that a notice u/s 142(1) of the Income Tax Act has been sent to him was in his knowledge and also in the knowledge of his Chartered Accountant. However, in voluntarily he had replied to the same through his advocate Sh. S. M. Bhardwaj. Witness denied that he and his CA have committed negligence by not filing reply to the notice u/s 142(1) of the IT Act and further denied the suggestion that he has not filed any complaint against his CA towards negligence.
6 During final arguments, it is submitted by Ld. SPP that present case was filed against the accused u/s 276 CC of Income Tax Act for annual year 2017-2018 as accused has deposited a substantial cash of amount Rs.12,29,600/- during demonetization period, however, has not filed return of the income for annual year 2017-2018, despite issuance of notice by AO u/s 142(1) of Income Tax Act on 09.03.2018. It is submitted that as accused has not filed return despite issuance of notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act, the proposal was put up before the concerned authority for sanction of filing the present complaint. It is submitted that on receiving the sanction, the present complaint has been CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 14 of 19 filed. It is submitted that complainant has examined CW1 Sh. Deepak Hooda and CW2 Raj Kumar Gupta and has proved the documents i.e. The sanction duly signed by Sh. Prashant Bhushan, Pr. CIT-18 dated 07.03.2019 is ExCW1/1(OSR), the complaint ExCW1/2, the list of witnesses is ExCW1/3, the notice u/s 142(1) issued by Sh. Raju Kumar Datta, the then Assessing Officer to the accused on 09.03.2018 as ExCW1/4, a proposal dated 28.01.2019 to the Pr. Commissioner -18 as ExCW1/5(OSR), show cause notice dt. 01.02.2019 sent by Sh. Prashant Bhushan, Pr. Commission of Income Tax is ExCW1/6(OSR), the reply to the notice dt. 21.02.2019 is ExCW1/7, the copy of ITR for assessment year 2017-2018 is ExCW1/8(OSR), the ordersheet of Pr. CIT is ExCW1/9(OSR), the assessment order ExCW/10, the demand notice dt.27.12.2019 is ExCW1/11(OSR) and the certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act is ExCW1/12. It is submitted that by proving the abovesaid documents, the complainant has proved its case and guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that accused is liable to the convicted and punished accordingly u/s 276CC of IT Act.
7 Per contra, it is submitted by Ld. counsel for accused during arguments that complainant has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubts for the two main reasons. Firstly, it is submitted that accused has furnished its return of income for the year 2017-2018 on 28.07.2017 itself, CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 15 of 19 which has been placed on record by the complainant as ExCW1/8. It is submitted that inadvertently the return was filed in the wrong ward manually. It is submitted that the accused has requested and apprised the complainant and PCIT about the said fact and to pass necessary directions for transfer of the said return ExCW1/8 in the concerned ward and to consider the same as required return. It is submitted that despite bringing the same fact and despite request for aforesaid the prosecution was filed case against the accused which is invalid and without application of mind. Secondly, it is submitted that alleged notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act dated 09.03.2018 has never been received by the accused. It is submitted that compulsion for filing return u/s 142 of the IT Act become effective only when notice u/s 142 is received by accused. It is submitted that complainant has not placed on record either the receipt of sending the notice to accused nor the delivery proof has been filed as per rules. It is submitted that the mere bar code affix at notice u/s 142 of IT Act ExCW1/4 does not fulfill the condition of section 27 of General Clauses Act. It is submitted that as no receipt of registered post / speed post mentioning the name and address of the accused, the presumption u/s 27 of General Clauses Act does not come in picture. It is submitted that as no notice has been served to the accused u/s 142 of IT Act and also that accused has already filed its return of income for the relevant year, the accused should be acquitted in the present case.
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
16 of 19
8 Before proceeding to deal with the contentions and evidence, it is important to go through section 142(1) & 276CC of Income Tax Act, Sec. 276CC :
"If a person willfully fails to furnish in due [the return of fringe benefits which he is required to furnish under sub- section (1) of Section 115WD or by notice given under Sub- section (2) of the said section or section 115WH or] time the return of income which he is required to furnish under sub- section (1) of section-139 or by notice given under [clause (i) of sub-section (1) of Section 142] or [section 148 or section 153A], he shall be punishable,--
( i) in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds [twenty-five hundred thousand rupees], with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine;
(ii) in any other case, with imprisonment of a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to [two years] and with fine:
Provided that a person shall not be proceeded against under this section for failure to furnish in due time the [return of fringe benefits under sub-section (1) of Section 115WD or return of income under sub-section (1) of section-139]-- ( i) for any assessment year commencing prior to the 1st day of April, 1975; or ( ii) for any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1975, if--
( a) the return is furnished by him before the expiry of the assessment year; or
(b) the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and any tax deducted at source, does not exceed three thousand rupees.]"
(1) For the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the (Assessing Officer) may serve on any person who has made a return (under section 115WD or section 139 or in whose case the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section
139) for furnishing the return has expired a notice requiring him, on a date to be therein specified,--
(i) where such person has not made a return (within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 or before the end of the relevant assessment year), to furnish a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed, or) :
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh
17 of 19
(Provided that where any notice has been served under this sub-section for the purposes of this clause after the end of the relevant assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1990 to a person who has not made a return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139 or before the end of the relevant assessment year, any such notice issued to him shall be deemed to have been served in accordance with the provisions of this sub-section:
(ii) to produce, or cause to be produced, such accounts or documents as the (Assessing Officer) may require, or
(iii) to furnish in writing and verified in the prescribed manner information in such form and on such points or matters (including a statement of all assets and liabilities of the assessee, whether included in the accounts or not) as the (Assessing Officer) may require :
Provided that--
(a) the previous approval of the (Joint Commissioner) shall be obtained before requiring the assessee to furnish a statement of all assets and liabilities not included in the accounts;
(b) the (Assessing Officer) shall not require the production of any accounts relating to a period more than three years prior to the previous year.
9 From the consideration of the arguments and perusal of record, it is noticed that present case has been filed by the complainant against the accused for not filing the return of income for the financial year 2017-2018 in compliance of notice u/s 142 of the Income Tax Act. The case of the accused has been that he has never received notice u/s 142 of the Income Tax Act. The complainant has placed on record photocopy of notice issued to accused u/s 142 (1) of IT Act as ExCW1/4. However, there is no receipt in the name of accused vide which it was sent to the accused through registered post. No doubt, there is a bar code with number of post mentioned just below the bar code, however, same does not prove that this notice was sent to the accused only from the registered post and secondly, there is nothing on record to connect the bar code and CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 18 of 19 number with the registered post booked at the address of accused. Ld. SPP has put document ExCW1/6 and ExCW1/7 in his attempt to prove service of notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act to the accused, however, that does not benefit the complainant as the requirement of law is that service of notice u/s 142 of IT Act is the requirement of law and the fact that accused was having knowledge of the fact that at some point a notice u/s 142 of IT Act was issued against him is not sufficient. Such knowledge of issuance of notice u/s 142 of IT Act cannot be said to be proof of service of notice u/s 142 of IT Act. In the absence of any proof of service of notice u/s 142(1) of IT Act, its non compliance does not become punishable u/s 276CC of IT Act.
10 Further, the willfulness in non compliance of order u/s 142(1) of IT Act is one of the essential ingredient for conviction u/s 276CC of IT Act. On the one hand as discussed above, the complainant could not prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused was served with the notice u/s 142 of IT Act as in the absence of such notice no willfulness can be attributable on the accused. Secondly, the accused had himself filed return of income for the annual year 2017-2018 on 28.07.2017 ExCW1/8, which was in the knowledge of the complainant. The complainant was in knowledge of the fact that the said return has been filed in the wrong ward / jurisdiction. In case of filing of return in a wrong jurisdiction, the proper CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh 19 of 19 course on the part of complainant could have been to transfer it in the correct ward, however, same has not been done for reasons best know to the complainant. When the complainant has himself filed the return of income before issuance of notice u/s 142 of IT Act (may be within the wrong jurisdiction) and had informed the department about the said fact alongwith his reply to the notices received from the complainant, the accused cannot be said to have committed a willful default in not filing of return u/s 142 of IT Act.
11 In view of above discussion, as the complainant could not prove, the service of notice u/s 142 of IT Act to the accused and the willfulness on the part of accused in non filing the return of income for the annual year 2017-2018, the accused Gagan Alagh is acquitted for offence u/s 276 CC of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Announced in the open court on this 22nd May 2024 MAYANK MITTAL ACMM (Spl. Acts), CENTRAL TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI This judgment consists of 19 pages and each and every page of this judgment is signed by me.
CC No. 5096/2019 ITO v. Gagan Alagh