Quashing of Criminal Proceedings for Belated Revised Return After Search and Seizure
Summary in Key Points:
- Facts: Criminal proceedings were initiated against the assessee under Section 276CC for not filing a revised income tax return on time. The assessee explained that the delay was due to relevant records being seized during a search and seizure operation. The penalty proceedings related to this issue were ultimately dropped, and a refund was granted to the assessee.
- Issue: Whether the criminal proceedings under Section 276CC should be quashed, considering the circumstances of the delayed revised return.
- Decision: The Supreme Court quashed the criminal proceedings. It considered the totality of the circumstances, including the seizure of records, the dropping of penalty proceedings, and the issuance of a refund, and determined that continuing the prosecution was not warranted.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. P. Darrmalingam
v.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax
M.M. SUNDRESH and Aravind Kumar, JJ.
Criminal Appeal No.5494 of 2024
DECEMBER 17, 2024
S. Nagamuthu, Sr. Adv., T. Harish Kumar, AOR, Navneet Dugar, Subham Kothari and Bharathi Subramanian, Advs., for the Petitioner. N. Venkatraman, A.S.G. (NP), Raj Bahadur Yadav, AOR, Venkatraman Chandrashekhara Bharathi, H.R. Rao, Mrs. Kritgya Kait, Ishaan Sharma and Padmesh Mishra, Advs. for the Respondent.
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The appeal lies on a very narrow compass. The criminal proceedings have been initiated under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the IT Act, 1961’) against the appellant for non-filing of the revised income tax return within time.
3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the revised income tax return was filed belatedly as the concerned records were seized in pursuance to the seizure. Ultimately, the penalty proceedings under the IT Act, 1961 were dropped, and in fact refund has been ordered.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that in view of the non-compliance of the mandate in not filing the revised income tax return within time, the criminal proceedings have been initiated against the appellant.
5. We are of the view that continuing the criminal proceedings would be unnecessary. We are dealing with a case where the appellant did in fact file the revised income tax return, and penalty proceedings which were initiated against the appellant itself have been dropped. As a consequence, refund was also ordered.
6. We are further supported by the reasoning given in the decision of this Court in ‘Guru Nanak Enterprises and Ors v. ITO, reported in (2005) 10 SCC 451.
7. Thus, considering the facts of the case in its totality, we are inclined to set aside the impugned order.
8. Accordingly, the impugned order stands set aside. Consequently, the criminal proceedings initiated under Section 276CC of the IT Act, 1961 against the appellant stands quashed.
9. The appeal is allowed accordingly.
10. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.