By K. B. Bhujle, Advocate
New Page 1
20 Prosecution : Delay in filing return and
false statement : S. 276CC and S. 277 of Income-tax Act, 1961 : A.Y. 1981-82 :
No evidence that delay was willful : Acquittal by criminal court : High Court
would not interfere merely because another view possible.
[UOI v. Dinesh, 304 ITR 345 (MP)]
For the A.Y. 1981-82 the assessee accused had filed the
return of income disclosing income of Rs.52,997. Thereafter the assessee filed a
revised return on 16-4-1983. On a complaint filed by the Department for offences
u/s.276CC and u/s.277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 the Trial Court acquitted the
accused assessee.
The Department filed appeal before the Madhya Pradesh High
Court. The case of the prosecution was that in accordance with S. 139 of the
Income-tax Act, 1961 the return was not filed in time, but was filed after a
lapse of almost about 20 months. It was submitted that in both the returns the
income was not shown correctly and, therefore, the accused has committed
offences punishable u/s.276CC and u/s.277 of the Act. It was also submitted that
the Court below took a hyper-technical view of the matter and wrongly acquitted
the accused.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed the appeal and held
as under :
“(i) In the matter of Narayan v. UOI, (1994) 208 ITR
82, this Court has observed that if except the length of delay, there is
nothing on the record and there does not appear to be any willful default,
then the Court would not be unjustified in acquitting the accused. In the said
matter, the appellant-accused was convicted by the lower Court, but the High
Court after finding that there was no willful default acquitted the accused.
The High Court has also observed that mere failure to file the return in time
in itself would not be sufficient, but the burden is upon the Department to
prove that non-action or inaction was a willful default.
(ii) In the present case, the Court below after giving its
anxious consideration to the facts of the case has come to the conclusion that
there was no willful default on the part of the accused. It would be trite to
say that the High Court would not interfere in an acquittal simply because yet
another view is possible.”
