Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

The petitioners' applications for discharge filed under Section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were dismissed. They have filed these revisions.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are as follows :

The petitioner in Crl. R.C. Nos.781, 783 and 785 of 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the first petitioner') was required to file return of income for the Assessment Year 1993-94 under Section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') by 31st August, 1993. The first petitioner failed to furnish the return of income. A notice was sent to the first petitioner under Section 142(1) on 18.1.1994, calling upon her to file the return of income within a period of 30 days from the date of service of the notice. This notice was served on the first petitioner on 19.1.1994. The period of 30 days expired, but no return was filed in compliance to the notice. Reminders were sent on 22.8.1994, 10.2.1995 and 23.8.1995, yet the return was not filed. Subsequently, a notice under Section 142(1)(ii) of the Act was issued on 31.7.1995, calling upon the first petitioner to produce the accounts since as per the Act, assessments need to be completed by March 31, 1996. The first petitioner failed to furnish the return of income and also failed to comply with the statutory notice. A best judgment assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Act on 9.2.1996 and penalty proceedings for concealment of income were initiated under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Penalty proceedings were also initiated for non-compliance of the notice under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act. A demand inclusive of interest was made. The first petitioner challenged the assessment order before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). This appeal was partly allowed by order dated 28.2.1997. The department has challenged that order in Appeal No.1239 of 1997. The first petitioner has also challenged that order. Both the Appeals are pending. On 14.10.1996, complaints were filed against the first petitioner and the other petitioners for the offence under Section 276CC of the Act. Thereafter, there have been several proceedings initiated at the instance of the first petitioner before the Magistrate's Court and also before the High Court. It is not necessary for the purpose of deciding these revisions to refer to all of them in detail or to refer to the facts in each case, since they are more or less similar.

4. The following grounds have been raised by the revision petitioners :

(1) The trial court failed to consider that the ingredients for the offence were not satisfied and the alleged offence is not complete.

(2) The determination of the quantum of tax liability and finality of assessment proceedings are important for invoking Section 276CC.

(3) Section 276CC(i) and (ii) refer to amount of tax and therefore, without the quantum of tax liability being determined, there can be no proceedings.

11. The relevant provisions of law can be referred to at this stage. Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reads thus :

"Failure to furnish returns of income.

276CC. 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-section (2) of the said section or section 115WH or the return of total 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,

Finally, the three Judge Bench held that the pendency of the re-assessment proceedings cannot act as a bar to the institution of a criminal prosecution.

40. The decision in 254 I.T.R. 292 [R.L. Sahni vs. R. Singh] was cited to show that under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, where in the appellate proceedings the income had been assessed and refund ordered, which was not challenged further, prosecution under Section 276CC was held not valid, relying on the proviso to Section 276CC.

41. We have already seen in paragraphs 13 and 14 of this order, how Section 276CC of the Act has to be construed and also that wilful failure to file the returns within due time is a continuing offence. At the cost of repetition, it has to be stated that in this case, till date, no returns have been filed and as seen from P. Jayappan's case (supra), there is no rigid rule even for adjournment or postponement of the hearing of a case before a criminal court only because some proceeding which may have a bearing on that case is pending elsewhere. The judgment in Prakash Nath Khanna's case (supra) actually supports the respondent's stand that prosecution should continue.