Madras High Court Grants Bail and Suspends Sentence in Section 276CC Case During Revision Proceedings

Background of the Criminal Revision

The matter arises from a criminal revision filed before the Madras High Court challenging the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The assessee, Suresh Babu, had been held guilty for failure to file the return of income within the time prescribed and for not clubbing the income of his minor son as required under the Act.

The conviction was originally recorded by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic Offences-II, Egmore, Chennai in EO.C.C. No. 621 of 2017, by judgment dated 03.02.2024. The Trial Court sentenced the assessee to:

  • Rigorous imprisonment for one year, and
  • A fine of Rs. 25,000/-,
  • With a default sentence of three months’ simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of fine.

This conviction and sentence were later affirmed by the learned Principal Sessions Judge, Chennai, in Crl.A. No. 144 of 2024, by judgment dated 25.11.2025. Aggrieved by the concurrent findings, the assessee approached the High Court by way of criminal revision and simultaneously moved miscellaneous petitions seeking:

  1. Suspension of the substantive sentence; and
  2. Exemption from surrendering before the Trial Court,
    pending final disposal of the criminal revision.

Allegations Leading to Prosecution Under Section 276CC

The prosecution case, as presented by the Income Tax Department, can be summarised as follows:

  • The assessee was on the assessment file of the respondent Income Tax Officer.
  • For the assessment year 2013-2014, the assessee was required to file his return of income under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, **on or before 31.07.2014`.
  • According to the Department, the assessee was also under an obligation to club the income of his minor son with his own income within this prescribed due date, in terms of the provisions governing clubbing of income of a minor child.
  • The assessee, however, filed his return of income only on 17.10.2015, which was beyond the due date stipulated under Section 139(1) of the Act.
  • Further, the return so filed did not include the income of the minor son.

Based on these facts, the Department alleged that:

  • There was willful and deliberate concealment of correct income;
  • Incorrect particulars of income had been furnished;
  • The filing was not only belated but also defective in terms of non-inclusion of minor’s income;
  • Consequently, the ingredients of offence under Section 276CC were said to be satisfied, justifying prosecution.

On this foundation, criminal proceedings were initiated, culminating in the conviction and sentence by the Trial Court, later confirmed by the Appellate Court.