Facts of the Case

The petitioner, Vipul Aggarwal, was prosecuted along with M/s ASM Traxim Pvt. Ltd. for alleged non-filing of Income Tax Returns (ITR) within the prescribed due date for Assessment Year 2012–13. The statutory deadline was 30th September 2012, but the return was filed on 12th August 2013 after issuance of notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act.

Subsequently, prosecution was initiated under Section 276-CC read with Section 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after obtaining sanction. The Trial Court framed charges, and the revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed, leading to the present petition seeking quashing of proceedings.

Issues Involved

  1. Whether prosecution under Section 276-CC can be sustained despite delayed filing of return under Section 139(4).
  2. Whether the petitioner could be treated as a “Principal Officer” without issuance of prior notice under Section 2(35)(b).
  3. Whether absence of specific sanction under Section 279 against the petitioner vitiates the prosecution.
  4. Whether liability under Section 278-B extends automatically to directors without proper sanction.

Petitioner’s Arguments

  • The petitioner contended that no prior notice was issued to treat him as a “Principal Officer” as required under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act.
  • It was argued that merely signing the ITR as a Director under Section 140 does not establish that he was in charge of day-to-day business.
  • The sanction for prosecution under Section 279 was defective as it did not specifically mention or authorize prosecution against the petitioner.
  • The delay in filing the return was minimal and did not cause any loss to the Revenue.

Respondent’s Arguments

  • The Income Tax Department argued that the petitioner responded to notices and filed returns, indicating he was responsible for company affairs.
  • It was contended that under Section 278-B, every person in charge of business operations is deemed guilty.
  • The absence of a specific notice under Section 2(35) does not absolve liability.
  • The issue of responsibility is a matter of trial and cannot be decided at the quashing stage.

Court Findings / Judgment

The Delhi High Court made the following key findings:

1. Principal Officer Requirement

The Court held that a Director cannot automatically be treated as a “Principal Officer” unless a specific notice is issued by the Assessing Officer indicating such intention. Absence of such notice is fatal to this claim.

2. Liability under Section 278-B

The Court acknowledged that directors can be presumed liable under Section 278-B if they are in charge of business operations. However, such presumption is rebuttable and subject to trial.

3. Mandatory Sanction under Section 279

The Court emphasized that prior sanction is a mandatory precondition for prosecution. Upon examining the sanction order, it was found that:

  • Sanction was granted only against the company (assessee).
  • There was no specific sanction against the petitioner.

4. Effect of Defective Sanction

In absence of valid sanction against the petitioner, the Court held that:

  • Cognizance taken by the Trial Court was invalid.
  • The entire prosecution against the petitioner is unsustainable.

Court Order

  • The complaint and all consequential proceedings against the petitioner were quashed.
  • The petition was allowed.

Important Clarifications

  • Filing of return under Section 139(4) does not bar prosecution under Section 276-CC.
  • A Director is not automatically a “Principal Officer”; formal notice is mandatory.
  • Sanction under Section 279 must be specific to each accused, not general.
  • Absence of sanction invalidates criminal prosecution entirely.

Sections Involved

  • Section 276-CC – Failure to furnish return of income
  • Section 278-B – Offences by companies
  • Section 278-E – Presumption of culpable mental state
  • Section 279 – Sanction for prosecution
  • Section 142(1) – Notice for filing return
  • Section 2(35) – Definition of Principal Officer
  • Section 140 – Signing of return
  • Section 139(1) & 139(4) – Filing of return provisions

Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2022:DHC:2644/AMN19072022CRLMM38942018_145059.pdf

Disclaimer

This content is shared strictly for general information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the assistance of AI tools.