Allowing the petition of the Assessee, the High Court relying strongly on the Calcutta High Court’s decision in the case of Gopal Ji Shaw v. ITO(1998) 173 ITR 554 (Cal)(HC) observed that the Department should not rush with the prosecution without any determination by the ITO of the liability of the accused-assessee, which is sought to be made the basis for prosecution and mens rea is one of the essential ingredient of a criminal offence. The High Court further observed that in the present case, the petitioner has already deposited the tax as well as the interest in light of the statute. When the ITO has levied interest on filing of the return, it must be presumed that the ITO has extended the time for filing the return after satisfying himself that there was ground for delay in filing the return. Hence, in such a case, no sentence could be imposed under Section 276CC of the Act. (AY. 2013-14).
Suresh Kumar Agarwal v. UOI (2023) 456 ITR 148/ 291 Taxman 258 / 332 CTR 762/ 225 DTR 499(Jharkhand)(HC)
S. 276CC : Offences and prosecutions-Failure to furnish return of income-Filed belated return and also deposited amount of tax along with interest for delay which was accepted by authority concerned-No sentence could be imposed u/s 276CC of the Act [S.. 153A, 279(1). Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, S 397]