Anjuga Selvi Alagiri (Smt.) v. Dy. DIT (Inv.) (2022)448 ITR 169/ 289 Taxman 326 (Mad.)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Compounding of offence not an absolute right but to be allowed based on facts and circumstances-Absence of assessee in India or communication gap between assessee and her representative not ground to quash prosecution. [S. 131(IA), 139(1), 276C(1), 278E, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, 200, 482]

The assessee failed to file her returns of income under section 139(1) within prescribed time for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2015-16. In the course of enquiry made under section 131(1A), the assessee’s chartered accountant who represented the assessee admitted the failure to file returns of income. Show-cause notices under section 276CC and section 276C(1) were issued for each assessment year for initiation of proceedings. The Department compounded the offences and prosection under section 276CC only for the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12. On petitions seeking quashing of the complaints, dismissing the petitions the Court held that there was enough material to proceed against the assessee for non-filing of returns of income under section 139(1) within the prescribed time which was punishable under section 276CC and for filing the return belatedly with suppressed income which was punishable under section 276C(1). Until the show-cause notices were issued to the assessee, she had not filed returns for her individual income and on investigation omission of certain income was found in her belated returns. Particularly, the source for payment through credit cards and interest accumulated in fixed deposits were detected and therefore, the prosecution had been launched. The self assessment tax on declared income was paid only after initiation of enquiry proceedings that too concealing a substantial part of the income. In such circumstances, several lakhs of rupees had been evaded with wilful intention. The Department had caused notice to the assessee and the explanation given by the assessee’s representative was not satisfactory leading to launching of the prosecution. The absence of the assessee in India or the communication gap between herself and her representative could not be a ground to quash the prosecution. The petition was dismissed. (AY.2010-11 to 2015-16)