PRAKASH NATH KHANNA vs. COMMNR OF INCOME TAX

Crl.A. No.-001260-001261 - 1997Supreme Court16 February 200413 pages
For Respondent: B. KRISHNA PRASAD
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Supreme Court hold?

The Supreme Court held that a return filed under Section 139(4) (belated return) does not qualify as a return furnished 'in due time' as required by Section 276-CC. The Court also stated that the issue of wilful failure and culpable mental state is a matter for trial.

What were the facts?

The appellants, partners of a firm, filed their income tax return for assessment year 1988-89 significantly late, on March 20, 1991, instead of the due date of July 31, 1988. Proceedings were initiated under Section 276-CC for failure to furnish the return in due time.

What were the issues?

Whether a return filed belatedly under Section 139(4) is considered a return furnished 'in due time' for the purpose of Section 276-CC, and whether wilful failure needs to be proven at the trial stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276-CC,Section 139(1),Section 139(4),Section 278-E

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cited by 111 judgments on BharatTax

See all citing judgments →

Counted from the text of the judgments hosted here. Most recent first.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 13 CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1260-1261 of 1997 PETITIONER: Prakash Nath Khanna & Anr. RESPONDENT: Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/02/2004 BENCH: DORAISWAMY RAJU & ARIJIT PASAYAT.

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT ARIJIT PASAYAT,J.

These appeals revolve round the scope and ambit of Section 276-CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ’Act’), and are directed against a common judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which rejected the three writ petitions filed by the appellants in these two appeals. The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Circle I, Shimla filed a complaint in terms of Section 276-CC of the Act in the Court of the CJM who had issued process of taking cognizance of the offence. In each of the writ applications, challenge was made to legality of the proceedings pending in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shimla (in short the ’CJM’).

The factual position is almost undisputed and needs to be noted in brief.

The three appellants were partners of a firm carrying on business under the name and style of M/s Kailash Nath and Ass

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →