1. Criminal proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Non-filing of revised income tax return within the prescribed time. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1324
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. SUNDRESH, ARAVIND KUMAR, JJ.
R. P. Darrmalingam – Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 5494 of 2024 (@ SLP(Crl.) No. 16534 of 2023)
Decided on : 17-12-2024
Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv., Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv., Mr. Bharathi Subramanian, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. (NP), Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Venkatraman Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv., Mr. H R Rao, Adv., Mrs. Kritgya Kait, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., Mr. T. Harish Kumar, AOR, Mr. Navneet Dugar, Adv., Mr. Subham Kothari, Adv., Mr. Bharathi Subramanian, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. N Venkatraman, A.S.G. (NP), Mr. Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Mr. Venkatraman Chandrashekhara Bharathi, Adv., Mr. H R Rao, Adv., Mrs. Kritgya Kait, Adv., Mr. Ishaan Sharma, Adv., Mr. Padmesh Mishra, Adv.
Important Points
Criminal proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act are quashed when the appellant has filed the revised return and penalty proceedings have been dropped.
Subject
Taxation Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 276CC - Criminal proceedings initiated for non-filing of revised income tax return - Penalty proceedings dropped and refund ordered - Continuing criminal proceedings deemed unnecessary. (Paras 2, 5, 8)
Facts of the case:
Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for non-filing of the revised income tax return within time, despite the return being filed belatedly due to seizure of records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had complied with the filing requirements, and the penalty proceedings were dropped, leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings was justified given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in light of the appellant's compliance and the dropping of penalty proceedings, criminal proceedings should not continue.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Facts of the case:
Criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant for non-filing of the revised income tax return within time, despite the return being filed belatedly due to seizure of records.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant had complied with the filing requirements, and the penalty proceedings were dropped, leading to the quashing of criminal proceedings.
Issues: Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings was justified given the circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that in light of the appellant's compliance and the dropping of penalty proceedings, criminal proceedings should not continue.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellant — Delay due to record seizure and penalty drop — Respondent — Criminal proceedings justified by non-compliance with filing timelines. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. Criminal proceedings are unnecessary where the revised return was filed and penalty proceedings were dropped, resulting in a refund. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. Criminal proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 may be quashed if the revised return is filed and penalty proceedings are dropped. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Impugned order set aside — Criminal proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 quashed — Appeal allowed. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 )
6. Under what circumstances may criminal proceedings under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 be quashed?
Criminal proceedings may be quashed if the taxpayer eventually files the revised income tax return and the penalty proceedings initiated against them are dropped, particularly when a refund has been ordered. (Para 5 , 6 )
ORDER :
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal lies on a very narrow compass. The criminal proceedings have been initiated under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act, 1961’) against the appellant for non-filing of the revised income tax return within time.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the revised income tax return was filed belatedly as the concerned records were seized in pursuance to the seizure. Ultimately, the penalty proceedings under the IT Act, 1961 were dropped, and in fact refund has been ordered.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of the non-compliance of the mandate in not filing the revised income tax return within time, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the appellant.
5. We are of the view that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary. We are dealing with a case where the appellant did in fact file the revised income tax return, and penalty proceedings which were initiated against the appellant itself have been dropped. As a consequence, refund was also ordered.
6. We are further supported by the reasoning given in the decision of this Court in ‘Guru Nanak Enterprises and Ors Vs. ITO, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 451.
7. Thus, considering the facts of the case in its totality, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 276CC of the IT Act, 1961 against the appellant stands quashed.
9. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
