9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 586X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he return of income for the assessment year in question within the period prescribed in law. The notices by the assessing authority under Section 142 (1) were issued with the objective of facilitating best judgment assessment. The failure to abide by such notices would also constitute offence, distinct from the offence that had been earlier committed by virtue of breach of Section 139 (1). The assessment proceedings are not related to these criminal prosecutions. They may eventually have a bearing for the benefit of proviso to Section 276CC to be invoked but not so as to inhibit continuation of the criminal process. See KARAN LUTHRA VERSUS INCOME TAX OFFICER (ITO) [2018 (10) TMI 135 - DELHI HIGH COURT]. In the present case, there was a b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oners that the ITR for the AY 2012-13 was required to be submitted in terms of Section 139 (1) of IT Act on or before 30.09.2012. The law would permit such ITR to be submitted in the extended period upto the close of the assessment year i.e. upto 31.03.2013. The respondent had issued a notice on 02.11.2012, in terms of Section 142 (1), calling upon the petitioners to furnish the return for AY 2012-13 on or before 20.11.2012. Yet, there was no compliance. The respondent levied penalty under Section 271 (1) (b) of IT Act vide order 22.10.2013 for non-compliance of the notice dated 142 (1). The ITR was eventually filed on 19.03.2014. 3. Be that as it may, the cause of action for filing the complaint in the above nature was pleaded with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plete and file the return and such a return though belated, may not attract prosecution of the assessee. Similarly, the proviso in clause (ii)(b) to Section 276-CC also provides that if the tax payable determined by regular assessment as reduced by advance tax paid and tax deducted at source does not exceed ₹ 3000, such an assessee shall not be prosecuted for not furnishing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act. Resultantly, the proviso under Section 276-CC takes care of genuine assessees who either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by pre-paid taxes, from the rigour of the prosecution under Section 276-CC of the Act. 26. Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notices by the assessing authority under Section 142 (1) were issued with the objective of facilitating best judgment assessment. The failure to abide by such notices would also constitute offence, distinct from the offence that had been earlier committed by virtue of breach of Section 139 (1). The assessment proceedings are not related to these criminal prosecutions. They may eventually have a bearing for the benefit of proviso to Section 276CC to be invoked but not so as to inhibit continuation of the criminal process . 7. In the present case, there was a breach even in compliance with the notice under Section 142 (1), which by the same logic as indicated above, constitutes distinct offence. 8. There is no merit in the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
