9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Conviction under section 276CC(ii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to furnish a return of income within the prescribed time. Analysis: The petitioner, an income-tax payer, was convicted under section 276CC(ii) for failing to furnish a return of income for the assessment year 1983-84 within the prescribed time, resulting in a sentence of rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The petitioner filed the return late by about 20 months. The prosecution's case was based on the wilful failure to furnish the return on time, as required by the Income-tax Act. The prosecution relied on the testimony of a witness who confirmed the facts of the case and the late filing of the return. The witness also mentioned that the petitioner submitted a medical certificate and affidavit citing illness as the reason for the delay. However, the witness did not investigate the credibility of the medical certificate or the petitioner's illness, leading to doubts about the wilfulness of the delay. The courts below held that the delay in filing the return was not satisfactorily explained and concluded that the delay itself indicated mens rea. The petitioner argued that the prosecution failed to prove the wilfulness of the delay beyond a reasonable doubt, as required by section 276CC. The petitioner contended that the delay, even though substantial, did not automatically establish wilful failure. The High Court emphasized that the essence of the offence under section 276CC lies in proving the wilfulness of the delay in filing the return. The court referred to the Supreme Court's interpretation of "wilful default," which requires intentional, deliberate, and conscious actions with full knowledge of the legal consequences. The court highlighted that mere delay does not constitute wilful default and that the prosecution must provide clear and reliable evidence of wilfulness. The court found that the prosecution failed to establish that the delay was wilful, especially considering the petitioner's prompt submission of an affidavit and medical certificate citing illness as the reason for the delay. The court noted that the Department accepted the medical certificate without questioning its credibility, indicating that the delay was not adequately investigated. Consequently, the court acquitted the petitioner of the offence under section 276CC(ii) and ordered the return of any deposited fine. In conclusion, the judgment focused on the requirement of proving wilful default under section 276CC of the Income-tax Act and highlighted the importance of clear and cogent evidence to establish wilfulness beyond a reasonable doubt. The court's decision to acquit the petitioner was based on the lack of conclusive proof of wilful delay in filing the return.
|
