AKSHAY DEWAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 35 (1) (1) MUMBAI AND ANR

PDF · subscribers
WP/1284/2023HC BombayHCBM01011238202307 August 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE JITENDRA SHANTILAL JAIN3 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that a case for attracting the provisions of Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was not made out. The Court noted that the petitioner had disclosed his salary income not only in column 23 of the return form but also that the TDS deducted by his employer was reflected on the respondents' portal. The Court found that the omission from the final computation was an inadvertent error, as accepted by the petitioner and acknowledged by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c). Therefore, the Court concluded that the petitioner had not failed to disclose his income. Consequently, the criminal complaint filed before the learned Magistrate was quashed and set aside. The petition was disposed of in these terms, with no costs.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Akshay Dewan, an individual, is challenging a criminal case filed against him under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. For Assessment Year 2013-2014 (Financial Year 2012-2013), the petitioner, having moved from Mumbai to Gurugram, filed his income tax return online himself. He disclosed a salary income of Rs. 8,90,548/- in column 23 of the return. However, due to an inadvertent error, this amount was not included in the final computation of income. The Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) on this salary was correctly reflected on the Income Tax Department's portal. Upon scrutiny, the petitioner admitted the error, paid the due tax and interest. Subsequently, the revenue levied a penalty of Rs. 1,03,072/- under Section 271(1)(c). The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) deleted this penalty, accepting the petitioner's explanation of inadvertent error and the disclosure of income in column 23 and TDS.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the criminal case filed under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for alleged evasion of tax is maintainable, considering the facts of the case. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that the criminal case is not maintainable. He contended that he had disclosed his salary income in column 23 of the return and that the TDS was reflected on the department's portal. He further submitted that the omission from the final computation was an inadvertent error due to his unfamiliarity with online filing, and he rectified the mistake by paying the due tax and interest. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had already deleted the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) based on these facts. Revenue's Contention: No specific arguments were recorded for the revenue as no reply was filed, and no one appeared on their behalf.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276C(1),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Sayyed 14-WP.1284.2023.docx IN IN THE THE HIGH HIGH COURT COURT OF OF JUDICATURE JUDICATURE AT AT BOMBAY BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 2023 WRIT PETITION NO.1284 OF 2023 Akshay Dewan Akshay Dewan ... ...Petitioner Petitioner Versus Versus Income Tax Officer-35(1)(1) Income Tax Officer-35(1)(1) Mumbai & Anr. Mumbai & Anr. ... ...Respondents Respondents _____________________________________________________ Mr. Advait Helekar a/w Mr. Aditya Iyer & Mr. Veerteg Patil for Petitioner. Mr. Advait Helekar a/w Mr. Aditya Iyer & Mr. Veerteg Patil for Petitioner. None for Respondent No.1. None for Respondent No.1. Mr. Shrikant Yadav, APP for Respondent No.2-State Mr. Shrikant Yadav, APP for Respondent No.2-State _____________________________________________________ CORAM : Jitendra Jain, J. DATED : 7 August 2025 PC.:- 1. This petition is filed for quashing Criminal Case This petition is filed for quashing Criminal Case No.1452/SW/2018 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate No.1452/SW/2018 filed before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate 38 38th th Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai for an alleged offence punishable Court at Ballard Pier, Mumbai for an alleged offence punishable under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act). under Section 276C(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (I.T. Act). 2. By order dated 11 January 2024, the Respondents were By order dated 11 January 2024, the Respondents were directed to file the reply. However, till today no reply is filed. Even directed to file the reply. However, till today no reply is filed. Even today, none appeared for the Respondents. Therefore, I have no other today, none appeared for the Respondents. Therefore, I have no other option, but to proceed with the matter as it stands today. option, but to proceed with the matter as it stands today. 3. The Petitioner is an individual and was employed with a The Petitioner is an individual and was employed with a company and used to draw a salary which was taxable under the I.T. company and used to draw a salary which was taxable under the I.T. Act. Prior to moving to Gurugram, the Petitioner was employed with Act. Prior to moving to Gurugram, the Petitioner was employed with East India Hotel in Mumbai and the returns were filed by a Chartered East India Hotel in Mumbai and the returns were filed by a Chartered Accountant in Mumbai. However, during the year under consideration Accountant in Mumbai. However, during the year under consideration i.e. Financial Year 2012-2013, the Petitioner on account of his i.e. Financial Year 2012-2013, the Petitioner on account of his employment moved out of the Mumbai to Gurugram. Therefore, for the employment moved out of the Mumbai to Gurugram. Therefore, for the Page 1 of 3 2025:BHC-AS:33782

Sayyed 14-WP.1284.2023.docx Assessment Year 2013-2014, the Petitioner filed his return income on Assessment Year 2013-2014, the Petitioner filed his return income on his own without taking the assistance of the Chartered Accountant. his own without taking the assistance of the Chartered Accountant. While filing the return of income online, the Petitioner disclosed the While filing the return of income online, the Petitioner disclosed the income from salary in column No.23 amounting to Rs.8,90,548/-. income from salary in column No.23 amounting to Rs.8,90,548/-. However, this amount was not included in the final computation of However, this amount was not included in the final computation of income on account of inadvertent error since he was not well versed income on account of inadvertent error since he was not well versed with the filing of tax return online. It is also important to note that the with the filing of tax return online. It is also important to note that the TDS amount on the said salary was deducted by the employer and same TDS amount on the said salary was deducted by the employer and same was also reflected on the portal of the Income Tax Department. was also reflected on the portal of the Income Tax Department. 4. In scrutiny assessment when this fact was brought to the In scrutiny assessment when this fact was brought to the notice of the Petitioner, the Petitioner realised his mistake and accepted notice of the Petitioner, the Petitioner realised his mistake and accepted that on account of inadvertent error, the salary amount although that on account of inadvertent error, the salary amount although disclosed in column No.23 was not taken into consideration in final disclosed in column No.23 was not taken into consideration in final computation of income. He, therefore, agreed for assessing the salary computation of income. He, therefore, agreed for assessing the salary income and paid the necessary tax and interest thereon after deducting income and paid the necessary tax and interest thereon after deducting tax deducted at source . tax deducted at source . 5. However, the revenue levied penalty on the aforesaid amount However, the revenue levied penalty on the aforesaid amount amounting to Rs.1,03,072/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The amounting to Rs.1,03,072/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his detailed order dated 10 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his detailed order dated 10 January 2019 accepted the explanation given by the Petitioner that on January 2019 accepted the explanation given by the Petitioner that on account of he being not well versed with the online filing of return of account of he being not well versed with the online filing of return of income and the salary income having been reflected in column No.23 of income and the salary income having been reflected in column No.23 of the form of return and tax at source deducted by employee, but the form of return and tax at source deducted by employee, but inadvertently was not considered in computation of income deleted the inadvertently was not considered in computation of income deleted the penalty. penalty. 6. In my view, after considering the documents annexed to the In my view, after considering the documents annexed to the present petition and after going through the Commissioner of Income present petition and after going through the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order, this cannot be a case where the Petitioner has not Tax (Appeals) order, this cannot be a case where the Petitioner has not disclosed his income. The Petitioner has disclosed the salary income not disclosed his income. The Petitioner has disclosed the salary income not Page 2 of 3

Sayyed 14-WP.1284.2023.docx only in column No.23 of the form required for filing the return of only in column No.23 of the form required for filing the return of income, but also in the portal of the Respondents, the TDS deducted on income, but also in the portal of the Respondents, the TDS deducted on such salary income by the employer was also disclosed. Therefore, in such salary income by the employer was also disclosed. Therefore, in my view, no case is made out for attracting provisions of Section my view, no case is made out for attracting provisions of Section 276C(1) of the I.T. Act on the facts of the present case. Therefore, the 276C(1) of the I.T. Act on the facts of the present case. Therefore, the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate CC No.1452/SW/2018 is complaint filed before the learned Magistrate CC No.1452/SW/2018 is quashed and set aside. quashed and set aside. 7. The Petition is disposed of above in above terms. No costs. The Petition is disposed of above in above terms. No costs.

(Jitendra Jain, J.) Page 3 of 3 Signed by: Sayyed Saeed Ali Designation: PA To Honourable Judge Date: 07/08/2025 17:45:11

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →