HC presumes existence of culpable mind in not filing return within time; confirms prosecution

HC presumes existence of culpable mind in not filing return within time; confirms prosecution    

Where assessee had not filed return of income timely, it could be prosecuted under section 276CC on presumption that there existed a culpable mental state as onus to prove that delay was not willful was on assessee and not on department

In the instant case, the assessee had filed the return of income on 1-5-1995 for assessment year 1994-95. The revenue's case was that inspite of several notices issued to assessee, she had filed the return of income beyond the statutory period. Therefore, delay in filing return was willful and deliberate and, thus, she was liable to be prosecuted and punished under section 276CC. However, the trial Court and the Sessions Court discharged the assessee. The revenue then filed the petition seeking reversal of orders of both the Courts.

The High Court held as under:

1) It was not in dispute that the assessee had not filed the return for the assessment year 1994-95 within prescribed period and not even within the period within which the revenue had required her to do so. The assessee had not even responded to the communications sent by the revenue requiring her to file return of income or to show the proof of filing. So, the offence under Section 276CC stood committed by that time and for that offence, the department could file a criminal complaint against her after obtaining requisite sanction from the competent authority which it did obtain and complaint was filed in Court;

2) It was for the respondent to establish during the trial that her failure to file return was not willful. The Courts went wrong in going into the question as to whether the explanation offered by the assessee before the filing of the complaint in Court was rightly rejected or not;

3) Once the complaint stood filed, the trial Court was only required to examine whether cognizance was to be taken or not and if it was decided to take cognizance, thereafter, trail Court was required to examine whether in the pre-charge evidence the complainant had been able to show that the assessee had not filed her return for the relevant assessment year within the prescribed period, which fact in the present case was not even disputed by the assessee;

4) So, after raising the presumption under section 278E, the trial Court should have framed the charge against the assessee leaving it to her to show thereafter that there was no willful default on her part. Just because the assessee had applied for the compounding of the offence before the filing of the complaint against her in Court, and the same had not been decided before the filing of the complaint, it could not be said that the complaint was not maintainable;

5) The trial Court was not required to examine at the stage of charge as to why the department was not compounding the offence in the case of the respondent herein. If she was aggrieved by any action or inaction on the part of the authority for compounding, she would have had recourse to legal remedies instead of waiting for the prosecution to be launched by the department;

6) The revisional Court also did not go into the aforesaid aspects and simply affixed its seal of approval to the order of the trail Court and, therefore, its order also couldn’t be sustained. This petition, accordingly, was allowed. The impugned orders of the trial Court and the revisional Court were set aside – ACIT V. NILOFAR CURRIMBHOY [2013] 35 taxmann.com 99 (Delhi)