2023 (3) TMI 1057 - HC - Income Tax

Block Assessment - prosecution with regard to undisclosed income for block assessment - Offence Committed under Section 276C(1), Section 277 read with Section 278B - HELD THAT - Since the learned Coordinate Bench has taken a view as regards there being no provision existing at the relevant point of time whereby the Income Tax Department could launch a prosecution as regards income disclosed in block assessment for the period between 1.7.1995 to 1.1.1997, automatically and as a direct consequence, quashing of prosecution is the only necessary corollary. Having come to such a conclusion, there was no requirement for the learned Coordinate Bench to have discussed with regard to applicability of Section 278E of the Act and whereas in the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, the submission of the learned Advocate for the Income Tax Department cannot be accepted. Insofar as the submission of Income Tax Department that the decision in Criminal Misc. Application 2018 (10) TMI 1737 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT would not be applicable on the ground that the heads on which incomes were not disclosed were different than the heads of undisclosed incomes in the present case, therefore, the same may not be applicable. In the considered opinion of this Court, the Criminal Complaint has been filed by the Department inter alia alleging commission of offences punishable under Section 276C, Section 277 read with Section 278B of the Act. A bare perusal of Section 276(1) would reveal that punishment is to be imposed for willful attempt to evade tax, penalty or interest and whereas the heads of income under which there has been any alleged willful attempt as per the Scheme of the Section does not hold any special relevance. In this regard it would also be relevant to note that while it is undoubtedly true that the learned Coordinate Bench of this Court had made observations with regard to the heads of income in the judgement dated 26.10.2018, but at the same time what would be necessary to note is the fact that having decided the preliminary issue as regards there being no power vested with the Income Tax Department to launch a prosecution with regard to undisclosed income for block assessment for the period between 1.7.1995 to 1.1.1997, the necessary consequence would be quashment of the Complaints. The latter observations would not have made any difference to the final finding on the issue. Under such circumstances, in the considered opinion of this Court, the fact of heads on which income had not been disclosed being different and distinct in the present group of cases and the decision by the learned Coordinate Bench in Criminal Misc. Application 2018 (10) TMI 1737 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT would not be of any material consequence and hence, the said submissions is also not countenanced.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of prosecution under Section 276C(1) and 278B of the Income Tax Act for undisclosed income in block assessments.
2. Applicability of Section 158BF and its implications on penalties and prosecution.
3. Relevance of the decision in Criminal Misc. Application No.3437 of 2004 to the present case.

Summary:

1. Legality of Prosecution under Section 276C(1) and 278B:
The applicants challenged the prosecution initiated by the Income Tax Department under Section 276C(1) and 278B for not showing undisclosed income in their returns. The prosecution was based on the findings from a raid conducted on 1.12.1995, which led to a block assessment determining undisclosed income. The applicants argued that the block assessment period is a single unit of assessment and thus, income taxed in a block assessment should not be related to any particular year, and no prosecution should follow as per Section 158BF of the Act.

2. Applicability of Section 158BF:
The applicants contended that during the relevant period (1.7.1995 to 1.1.1997), Section 158BF provided immunity from penalties and interest for undisclosed income determined in block assessments. Therefore, prosecution under Section 276C(1) and 278B should not apply. The court noted that the legislative intent during this period was to grant immunity from such penalties and prosecution, as evidenced by the lack of specific provisions for prosecution in the statute until amendments were made post-1.1.1997.

3. Relevance of Decision in Criminal Misc. Application No.3437 of 2004:
The court found that the issues in the present applications were substantially similar to those decided in Criminal Misc. Application No.3437 of 2004. In that case, it was determined that there was no provision allowing for prosecution for undisclosed income in block assessments for the period between 1.7.1995 to 1.1.1997. Consequently, the court held that the law laid down in the previous decision was binding and applicable, thus necessitating the quashing of the impugned complaints.

Conclusion:
The court quashed the impugned Criminal Complaints No.2707 of 2000, 2708 of 2000, 2709 of 2000, and 2710 of 2000 pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat. The applications were allowed on the grounds that the prosecution could not be sustained due to the legislative framework in place during the relevant period, which did not permit such actions. The rule was made absolute to the extent of quashing the complaints.