SUDHIR SHREERAM NAPHADE vs. INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT THROUGH ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANR.

PDF · subscribers
WP/4580/2019HC BombayHCBM01041782201913 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the process was wrongly issued against the petitioner (Accused No. 3). The court found that the petitioner's assertion that he was not connected with Accused No. 1 company after 2007, and specifically during the period relevant to Assessment Year 2014-15 (when the return was due in October/November 2013), was not rebutted by the respondents. The court noted that the complaint's averment regarding the petitioner's responsibility for the company's day-to-day affairs was a bald statement. Relying on the principle established in Homi Phiroz Ranina and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors., where a similar criminal complaint was quashed on analogous facts, the court concluded that no case was made out against the petitioner under Sections 276CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. Consequently, the process and the criminal complaint, insofar as the petitioner was concerned, were quashed and set aside. The order was explicitly stated to apply only to the petitioner and not to other accused not before the court.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Sudhir Shreeram Naphade (Accused No. 3), filed a writ petition challenging the process issued by the learned Magistrate on August 4, 2018, and seeking to quash Criminal Case No. 440/SW/2018. The complaint was filed for offenses under Section 276CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15, alleging that Accused No. 1 (a company) failed to file its return of income. The complaint stated that the petitioner was responsible for and in charge of the day-to-day affairs of Accused No. 1. The petitioner had previously responded to a show cause notice, stating he was only a Technical Director with Accused No. 1 in 2006 and had no connection with the company after 2007. The offense pertains to the period when the return was due in October/November 2013.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the process was wrongly issued against the petitioner (Accused No. 3) for offenses under Section 276CC read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment Year 2014-15, given his alleged lack of connection with the company during the relevant period. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he was only a Technical Director with Accused No. 1 in 2006 and had no connection with the company after 2007. He contended that the averment in the complaint that he was responsible for and in charge of the day-to-day affairs of the company was a bald statement and had not been rebutted by the respondents. He relied on the decision in Homi Phiroz Ranina and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Application No. 286 of 1997) for similar facts. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276CC,Section 278B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

16-CRIWP-4580-2019 (C).DOC Pallavi IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4580 OF 2019 Sudhir Shreeram Naphade …Petitioner Versus Income-tax Department Through Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax And Anr. …Respondents Mr Meghashyam K. Kocharekar, for the Petitioner. Mr P.N. Dabholkar, APP, for the Respondent – State. Ms. Mamta Omle, for Respondent No.1. CORAM Jitendra Jain, J. DATED: 13 AUGUST 2025 PC:- 1. This Petition is filed by the petitioner (Accused No.3) challenging the issue of process by the learned Magistrate on 4 August 2018 and for quashing of Criminal Case No.440/SW/2018. 2. The complaint is filed for offence under Section 276CC r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act,1961 for Assessment Year 2014-15 on the ground that Accused No.1 – Company has not filed its return of income. On a perusal of the complaint the only averment qua the Page 1 of 3 PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Digitally signed by PALLAVI MAHENDRA WARGAONKAR Date: 2025.08.13 17:18:16 +0530

16-CRIWP-4580-2019 (C).DOC Petitioner who is Accused No.3 is a bald statement that he was responsible and in-charge of the day-today affairs of Accused No.1 – Company. 3. In response to the show cause notice, prior to launching the prosecution, the petitioner vide letter dated 1 February 2018 has stated that he was only the Technical Director employed with Accused No.1 in the year 2006 and after 2007 he was in no way connected whatsoever with Accused No.1 – Company. This has not been rebutted by the Respondents. The offence pertains to Assessment Year 2014-2015 relevant to Financial Year 2013-2014 and the return was required to be filed in October/November 2013 at which point of time, the Petitioner – Accused No.3 was in no way connected with Accused No.1 and moreso in its affairs. 4. Therefore, in my view, process has been wrongly issued and no case is made out for offence under Sections 276CC r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act against the Petitioner (Accused No.3). 5. Therefore, process and the Criminal complaint insofar as the present petitioner is concerned is quashed and set aside. I make it Page 2 of 3

16-CRIWP-4580-2019 (C).DOC clear that the present order is applicable only to the Petitioner who is before this Court and not to other accused who are not before this Court. 6. The learned counsel for the Petitioner is justified in relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Homi Phiroz Ranina and Ors. vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. (Criminal Application No.286 of 1997) where on similar facts, criminal complaint was quashed. 7. In view of above, Petition is allowed in above terms. No order as to costs. (Jitendra Jain, J) Page 3 of 3

More judgments on Section 276CC

All 57 judgments and leading authorities on Section 276CC →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →