Prosecution Valid if ITR not filed : High Court
It is the case of the respondent that the petitioner herein who had taxable income for the Financial Year 2012 – 2013 / Assessment
Year 2013 – 2014, had not filed the Annual Return as mandated under Section 139[1] of the Act, 1961, nor under the extended
time under Section 139[4] of the said Act. It had been stated that the petitioner herein had received substantial income in the form
of salary amounting to Rs.68,71,731/- and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual
funds and with respect to credit card transactions.
Year 2013 – 2014, had not filed the Annual Return as mandated under Section 139[1] of the Act, 1961, nor under the extended
time under Section 139[4] of the said Act. It had been stated that the petitioner herein had received substantial income in the form
of salary amounting to Rs.68,71,731/- and had also indulged in high end transactions with respect to purchase and sale of mutual
funds and with respect to credit card transactions.
Mr.Naveen Kumar Murthi, learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner was not able to file the Returns
owing to the fact that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his erstwhile employer, namely, ITW India
Limited, where he was working as General Manager [Automotive Group] during the years 2012-2014, would have filed the Tax
Returns in the normal course. Learned counsel stated that the income of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2012 – 2013 was
Rs.45,07,595/-, but, there had been a mistake in Form 26AS filed by the Company on behalf of the petitioner wherein the income
was entered as Rs.68,71,731/
owing to the fact that the petitioner was under the bona fide impression that his erstwhile employer, namely, ITW India
Limited, where he was working as General Manager [Automotive Group] during the years 2012-2014, would have filed the Tax
Returns in the normal course. Learned counsel stated that the income of the petitioner for the Financial Year 2012 – 2013 was
Rs.45,07,595/-, but, there had been a mistake in Form 26AS filed by the Company on behalf of the petitioner wherein the income
was entered as Rs.68,71,731/
Held by the High Court
Hon’ble Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioner herein that he was innocent and ignorant and therefore, indulgence should be granted to him, is actually a fact which
should be proved by him in a Court of law. Such innocence or ignorance cannot be presumed. On the other hand, what can be presumed is the culpable mental status and it is for the petitioner herein to prove the contrary.
should be proved by him in a Court of law. Such innocence or ignorance cannot be presumed. On the other hand, what can be presumed is the culpable mental status and it is for the petitioner herein to prove the contrary.
This Court cannot presume that the petitioner herein is innocent of any of the offences complained. It is for the petitioner to establish such innocence. The platform for establishing such innocence is the Court where the trial is to be conducted and in the presen case, that particular Court is the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate/EO-I, Egmore, Chennai
Refer Case Law
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Raman Krishna Kumar
v.
Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax
C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.
CRL.OP.NO.25561 OF 2016 & CRL.MP.NOS.12438 & 12439 OF 2016
OCTOBER 26, 2021
Naveen Kumar Murthi for the Petitioner. L. Murali Krishnan for the Respondent.