NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Thursday snubbed Tamil Nadu chief minister J Jayalalithaa and her associate Sasikala for adopting delaying tactics in cases relating to non-filing of income tax returns two decades ago, for which the department has slapped a tax demand of over a crore rupees on them.
Asking the trial court to conclude proceedings against Jayalalithaa and Sasikala within four months, a bench of Justices K S Radhakrishnan and A K Sikri dismissed their appeals and said the proceedings were stalled by filing of appeals.
“Each and every order passed by the revenue (department) as well as by the courts was taken up before the higher courts, either through appeals, revisions or writ petitions. The details of the various proceedings in respect of these appeals are given in the written submissions filed by the revenue, which reveals the dilatory tactics adopted in these cases,” said Justice Radhakrishnan, who authored the judgment.
The bench issued a general cautionary note to all courts asking them to be on guard “against those persons who prefer to see it (the courts) as a medium for stalling all legal proceedings”.
For non-filing of income tax returns for the year 1991-92 and 1992-93 as partners of Sasi Enterprises and their individual returns for the year 1993-94, the income tax department had initiated proceedings and filed complaints on August 21, 1997 before the chief judicial magistrate, Chennai.
The bench accepted additional solicitor general Sidharth Luthra’s argument that Section 139 of I-T Act made it mandatory for a person to file an income tax return before August 31 of the relevant assessment year.
It also rejected senior advocate Shekhar Naphade’s argument that the income tax department could not have initiated prosecution under Section 276CC of the Act against Jayalalithaa and Sasikala when their appeals in higher courts were pending.
The bench said, “Section 276CC contemplates that an offence is committed on the non-filing of the return and it is totally unrelated to the pendency of assessment proceedings except for second part of the offence for determination of the sentence of the offence, the department may resort to best judgment assessment or otherwise to past years to determine the extent of the breach.”
On the question whether non-filing of income-tax returns were willful default on the part of Jayalalithaa and Sasikala, the bench said, “The appellants have to prove the circumstances which prevented them from filing the returns as per Section 139(1) or in response to notices under Section 142 and 148 of the Act.”
