Back
HARNARESH SINGH GILL
Health Bio Tech Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. delayed tax payment does not imply tax evasion. (Para 1 , 6 , 7 , 14) |
| 2. lack of willful evasion negates criminal prosecution. (Para 10 , 15 , 16) |
JUDGMENT
Harnaresh Singh Gill, J.
Prayer in this petition is for quashing the complaint bearing No.8983 dated 04.12.2014 (Annexure P-1), under Section 276(C)(2) read with section 278B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (for short 'the Act'), along with all the consequential proceedings arising therefrom, including the summoning order dated 22.12.2014 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.
2. Petitioner No.1 is a registered firm, of which petitioners No.2 to 4 are the Directors. The dispute is with regard to non-payment of the tax, in time, which was self-assessed by petitioner No.1, while filing the Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2011-12.
3. On 29.09.2011, petitioner No.1 had filed Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2011-12, thereby declaring a Gross Total Income of Rs.6,72,05,864/- and the amount of aggregate tax was shown as Rs.1,36,20,887/-. Thereafter, the said return was revised on 22.10.2012 and the amount of aggregate tax was shown as Rs.1,50,81,728/-. However, the
Delayed payment of income tax does not constitute tax evasion under Section 276C of the Income Tax Act, requiring evidence of willful intent to evade tax for prosecution.
object of launching criminal prosecution for wilful default in complying with the provisions of the Income Tax Act is to prevent evasion of tax
The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of timely filing of the Return of Income, the consequences of wilful attempt to evade tax, penalty, and interest chargeable, and t....
The main legal point established is that the failure to remit tax, without evidence of a wilful attempt to evade tax, does not constitute an offence under Section 276 C (2) of the Income Tax Act.
Willful default in tax payment under Section 276 C (2) requires proof of intentional evasion; mere delay, along with demonstrated financial difficulties, does not suffice for prosecution.
Mere failure to pay admitted tax does not constitute wilful evasion under S.276C(2) unless deliberate intent proven; presumption under S.278E applies post foundational facts.
The rule of evidence under Section 278 E of the Act regarding rebuttable presumption as to existence of culpable mental state on the part of accused would come into play. As such there is no scope fo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
