Home › Tax Laws › Arun Mitter v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401 / 305 CTR 577 (Delhi)(HC)

Arun Mitter v. ACIT (2018) 171 DTR 401 / 305 CTR 577 (Delhi)(HC)

S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income – Superior authority can also sanction prosecution–Imposition of penalty under Section 271F by AO not a pre-requisite for sanctioning prosecution –MD and other directors equally responsible for non-fling of return and hence other directors are also at default. [S. 271F, 278BB, 279]

Held by the High Court that:

  1. If is clear from the proviso to Section 279(1) that the prosecution be initiated at the instance of the authorities superior to the Assessing Officer. Hence there is no impropriety on the part of CIT in issuing show cause notice followed by grant of sanction for prosecution
  2. If is clear from the provisions of Section 271F of the Act (effective as on 01.07.2012) that omission on the part of Assessing Officer to impose such penalty by itself does not mean that in his opinion the default was no willful
  3. If appears, on first blush, that the primary responsibility of furnishing the return of income of the company is that of Managing Director however the relevant provisions of S. 140A noticeably uses the expression “any director thereof” and hence all the other directors are also equally responsible for such default. (AY. 2011-2012)