9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (6) TMI 717 - DSC - Income TaxOffence u/s 276 CC r.w.s 278 E - Prosecution proceedings against the company and its directors - Failure to file to ITR - Directors responsibility of paying taxing of company - accused was having taxable income but they did not file return of income though every company is liable to file a return of income for an assessment year by the due date - accused nos. 02 and 03 being directors are responsible for paying tax. HELD THAT - The accused have failed to discharge burden that they have not committed willful default in filing of return. Therefore, the ratio of the authority of S. Sunderam Pillai V/s. V.R. Pattabiraman, 1985 (1) TMI 306 - SUPREME COURT will not be applicable here. Accused have failed to file return of A.Y. 2014 2015 in time. Accused nos. 02 and 03 are directors of accused no. 1 company. They have not denied their directorship. Therefore, they are responsible for the defaults made by accused no. 1. Hence, it can safely concluded that the complainant has proved the guilt of accused under section 276 CC read with Sec. 278 E of the Act beyond reasonable doubt. In the result, answer point No. 01 in the affirmative. Section 276 CC of the Act prescribes rigorous imprisonment up to seven years and minimum punishment of six months. Considering the circumstances of the case and request of the accused and their advocate, a minimum punishment will suffice the purpose. Therefore, the accused are liable for said minimum punishment along with fine. ORDER i) Accused No. 1 M/s. Saloni Jewellers Pvt.Ltd. is convicted under section 248 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 276CC of The Income Tax Act, 1961 and sentenced to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand only). ii) The accused No. 2. Jitendra Fatechand Jain and accused No. 3 Kiran Fatechand Jain are convicted under section 248 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the offence punishable under section 276CC of The Income Tax Act and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months each and to pay the fine of Rs. 5,000/ (Rs. Five Thousand only) each in default of payment of fine, the accused No. 2 and 3 shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 30 days.
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the accused willfully failed to furnish returns of income for the assessment year 2014-2015. 2. What order should be passed regarding the findings. Summary: Issue 1: Willful Failure to Furnish Returns The complainant, Sudhansu Mohapatra, DCIT 4(3)(2), filed a complaint against the accused, a Pvt. Ltd. Company and its directors, for an offence under section 276-CC read with section 278-E of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The accused did not file the return of income for A.Y. 2014-2015 despite having taxable income. The directors, being responsible for tax payment, failed to file the return citing financial difficulties. The court examined evidence from both sides, including audit reports, notices, and sanction orders. The complainant proved that the accused had taxable income but did not file the return. The defense argued that the failure was not willful but due to financial difficulties and procedural lapses in notice issuance. However, the court found that the accused did not provide sufficient evidence to prove that the default was not willful. The court concluded that the accused failed to discharge the burden of proving the absence of willful default, thus affirming the complainant's case. Issue 2: Order The court, after hearing both parties, determined that the accused were guilty of the offence under section 276-CC read with section 278-E of The Income Tax Act. Considering the nature of the offence and the circumstances, the court decided to impose the minimum prescribed punishment. The order was as follows: i) The company (Accused No. 1) was fined Rs. 5,000. ii) The directors (Accused Nos. 2 and 3) were sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment each and fined Rs. 5,000 each, with a default clause of 30 days of simple imprisonment. iii) The directors were also ordered to pay the fine imposed on the company. iv) The bail bonds of the accused were surrendered. v) A copy of the judgment was provided to the accused free of cost.
|
