2001 (3) TMI 8 - HC - Income Tax

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the authorization for prosecution under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Requirement of notice and hearing before issuing sanction.
3. Application of mind by the sanctioning authority.
4. Impact of previous penalty proceedings on the validity of prosecution.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the authorization for prosecution under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961:
The petitioner challenged the authorization issued by the Commissioner of Income-tax on January 20, 1992, to include the petitioner's name in the order dated March 13, 1991, for prosecution under Section 276B for the assessment year 1982-83. The order dated March 13, 1991, sanctioned the prosecution of Jodhpur Woolen Mills Ltd. and its directors for failing to deposit TDS within the prescribed time. The successor Commissioner authorized the inclusion of the petitioner's name in the prosecution order.

2. Requirement of notice and hearing before issuing sanction:
The petitioner contended that the sanction was invalid as no notice to show cause was given before issuing the sanction. The court held that sanction is an administrative function and does not require a pre-hearing. The purpose of sanction is to prevent frivolous trials, and the accused has the opportunity to defend themselves during the trial. The court cited several precedents supporting the view that no pre-hearing is necessary before granting sanction for prosecution.

3. Application of mind by the sanctioning authority:
The petitioner argued that the authorization lacked application of mind and did not consider relevant material. The court emphasized that the sanctioning authority must apply its mind to the facts and evidence before granting sanction. The court referred to various precedents, including Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor and Gokulchand Dwarkadas Morarka v. King, which highlighted the necessity of considering all relevant facts before granting sanction. The court found that the sanctioning authority did not consider the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 201, which absolved the company from penalty due to financial difficulties. This indicated a lack of application of mind, rendering the sanction invalid.

4. Impact of previous penalty proceedings on the validity of prosecution:
The court noted that the Assessing Officer had found sufficient and good reasons for the company's failure to deposit TDS on time and did not impose a penalty. The court held that if penalty proceedings have been initiated and terminated favorably for the assessee, recording a finding of reasonable cause, it is improbable to sustain prosecution for the same default. The absence of reasonable cause was an essential ingredient for prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278AA. The court cited similar views from the Patna High Court in Banwarilal Satyanarain v. State of Bihar and the Delhi High Court in Sequoia Construction Co. P. Ltd. v. P.P. Suri, ITO.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the sanction for prosecution was granted without due application of mind to relevant facts and material, and the subsequent inclusion of the petitioner's name was mechanical without independent consideration. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the sanction order and further proceedings against the petitioner were quashed. There was no order as to costs.