Sessions Court upheld Magistrate order for framing of charges against assessee for prosecution u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act for belated filing of Income Tax Return
In a recent judgment, Sessions Court has declined interfering with the order passed by the Magistrate for framing of charges against assessee for offence punishable u/s 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for belated filing of Income Tax Return.
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
4819 (2025) (10) abcaus.in AC
In the instant case, the assessee had filed a Revision Petition before the Sessions Judge challenging the order passed by the Court of ACJM (Trial Court), directing framing of charges against the assessee for offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Act.
The Income Tax Department filed a complaint under Section 200 Cr.PC alleging offence punishable under Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against the revisionist assessee for non-filing of Income Tax Return for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
Subsequently vide the impugned order passed by trial court, charges were directed to be framed against the assessee.
Before the Sessions Court, the assessee stated that notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was never served upon the petitioner and show cause notice was issued to the petitioner reflecting notice of Section 142 (1) of Income Tax Act. It is further averred that aforesaid notice was purportedly sent to government house previously allotted to the petitioner husband which had been vacated by them before issuance of SCN.
It was further averred that sanction under Section 279(1) of Income Tax Act for prosecution under Section 276CC was granted by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax by erroneously recording that the notice under Section 142(1) of Income Tax Act was served despite there being no documentary proof to that effect.
On the other hand, the Department contended that show cause notice was issued to the accused and in response to that notice, CA of the assessee submitted that assessee was engaged in trading and had not filed her income tax return for AY-2017-18 and had received notice under Section 142 (1) of Income Tax Act but had not filed the return of income.
It was further submitted that after issuance of several show cause notices husband of assessee appeared and submitted that return of income for AY-2016-17 and 2017-18 had been filed belatedly. It was further averred after considering overall facts and circumstances reflecting willful default on the part of petitioner sanction had been accorded qua accused for the offence punishable under Section 276CC of the Act.
It was further submitted that fact of vacation of allotted Govt. house was never brought to the notice of department by the assessee, her husband or her CA/AR. It was further submitted that address was updated on ITBA portal and it is the duty of every assessee to update the address in case of any changes in the address. That notice under Section 142 (1) of the Act was sent on the address, which was available in the PAN data of Income Tax Portal and second address of assessee came in the knowledge of department only through return of income filed by the assessee.
It was further averred that filing of return belatedly is permitted under Section 139(4) of the Act but the same does not exonerate the assessee from proceedings under Section 276CC of the Act.
The Sessions Judge observed that the Trial Court had observed that it was admitted by the accused assessee that she had filed the return of income belatedly and though filing of return belatedly is permitted under Section 139(4), same does not exonerate the accused from the proceeding under Section 276CC of the Act. In coming to the said conclusion, the Trial Court was guided by the order of hon’ble High Court of Madras.
The Sessions Judge opined that the Trial Court had passed a detailed reasoned order wherein it was mentioned that as per submission notice under Section 142 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The Trial court had rightly held that there was sufficient material on record for framing charges against the assessee after considering all the submissions of both the parties.
Accordingly, the Sessions Judge held that it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that impugned order had been passed mechanically without appreciating facts and circumstances of the case in hand.
The Sessions Judge noted that service of notices was a matter of trial which cannot be looked into at this stage in the revision petition. Furthermore, as per submissions, notice under Section 142 (1) was issued on the only available last known address of the petitioner herein after obtaining the same from the Income Tax Portal and it was duty of the assessee to update the changes, if any, in the address on the Government Portal and assessee cannot take benefit of his/her own failure to update the changes in address. Therefore, defaulter cannot take the plea of nonservice after committing the default on his/her own.
Also, placing reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the Sessions Judge held that the court have to keep in mind that revisional jurisdiction is normally to be exercised in exceptional cases where there is a glaring defect in procedure or there is manifest error of law and consequently there has been a flagrant miscarriage of justice.
The Sessions Judge held that it cannot be said at this stage that conclusion arrived by the Trial Court was unreasonable and unjustified, calling for interference by the Sessions Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the revision petition was dismissed.
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Magistrate order framing charges against assessee for prosecution u/s 276CC upheld
- Notice u/s 148A(b) can’t be issued without first making inquiry u/s 148A(a) – SLP dismissed
- Difference of income with Form 26AS due to Percentage Completion Method. Case remanded
- Empanelment of General Observers for ICSI Examinations Dec 2025. Last date 24.11.2025
- AO erred in reopening assessment on a wrong finding of fact and conclusion thereof
