A Coimbatore court sentenced R. Natesan to two years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined him ₹7.54 lakh under Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, according to India Live’s September 30, 2026 report. The section concerns wilful failure to file a required income-tax return. The report describes the allegations and filing history, but does not provide the judgment’s reasoning or establish which statutory penalty tier the court applied.
What the report says happened
India Live reports that the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court in Coimbatore, which it describes as a special court for Income-tax cases, sentenced R. Natesan of Tiruchengode in Namakkal district. Chief Judicial Magistrate K. Sivakumar is named as the judge, and Special Public Prosecutor K. Venkatesh as appearing for the Income-tax Department.
The report concerns financial year 2012–13, corresponding to assessment year 2013–14. It says Income-tax Department records showed rent receipts of ₹25,89,914 and bank deposits of ₹71,40,741 under Natesan’s PAN. The report says he did not file a return for that assessment year under that PAN, but filed a return under another PAN and left out the rent receipts. These are details as reported about the prosecution’s case; a judgment or separate court record was not available to verify the court’s findings.
What Section 276CC covers
Section 276CC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 addresses wilful failure to furnish a required income-tax return by its due date. The official text, reproduced by India Code, provides different imprisonment ranges depending on the tax that would have been evaded:
PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute#1 Best Overall
| Tax that would have been evaded | Imprisonment range under Section 276CC |
|---|---|
| Exceeds ₹25 lakh | Rigorous imprisonment from six months up to seven years, plus a fine |
| Does not exceed ₹25 lakh | Imprisonment from three months up to two years, plus a fine |
India Code’s amendment notes state that the ₹25 lakh threshold and the two-year maximum for the lower tier were substituted by the Finance Act, 2012, effective July 1, 2012. The threshold is statutory context, not the amount involved in Natesan’s case: the report does not state the tax amount the court found would have been evaded.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What is not clear from the report
- It does not explain how the court calculated the ₹7.54 lakh fine.
- It does not identify which Section 276CC penalty tier the court applied or give the court’s reasoning.
- It does not say whether an appeal was filed.
- It reports rent receipts and bank deposits as separate figures; it does not establish that the deposits themselves were taxable income.
The sentence and case details above are attributed to India Live. The full judgment and an independent court record were not located, so the report alone does not establish findings beyond the details it provides.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Rank #4
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
