9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-deduction/short deduction and non-deposit of tax under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Validity of prosecution against a firm under section 276B. 3. Liability of partners for the firm's offenses. 4. Vagueness of charges framed. 5. Relevance of mens rea for an offense under section 276B. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-deduction/short deduction and non-deposit of tax under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961: The accused, a partnership firm and its partners, were charged with failing to deduct income-tax at the rates in force during the assessment year 1978-79 and/or failing to pay the deducted tax to the Central Government within the prescribed time. The Metropolitan Magistrate found a prima facie case under section 276B for the non-deduction of tax from interest payments to specific parties. The court held that the liability to deduct tax under section 194A is an absolute liability and does not depend on the wrongful intention or blameworthy condition of mind. 2. Validity of prosecution against a firm under section 276B: The court examined whether a firm, being a juridical person, could be prosecuted under section 276B, which mandates a minimum punishment of imprisonment. Drawing on the Full Bench decision in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J. B. Bottling Co. Pvt. Ltd., the court ruled that a firm could be prosecuted and, if found guilty, could be punished with a fine only, even though it cannot be imprisoned. The court rejected the reliance on D. C. Goel v. B. L. Verma, as it was overruled by the Full Bench decision. 3. Liability of partners for the firm's offenses: The court addressed the liability of the partners under section 276B. It was argued that there was no evidence proving that the partners were in overall control of the firm's day-to-day business. However, the complaint specifically averred that the partners were in charge of and responsible for the firm's conduct. The court found this evidence sufficient for framing charges against the partners, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in State of Karnataka v. Pratap Chand, which held partners liable if they were in charge of the firm's business or if the offense was committed with their consent or connivance. 4. Vagueness of charges framed: The accused contended that the charges were vague. The court reviewed the charges, which detailed the amount of interest credited/paid, the names of the recipients, the tax amount required to be deducted, and the actual amount deducted. The court found these details sufficient and ruled that the charges were not vague. 5. Relevance of mens rea for an offense under section 276B: The court examined whether mens rea was a necessary ingredient for an offense under section 276B. It concluded that the liability to deduct tax under section 194A is an absolute liability and does not require proof of wrongful intention. The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in State of Maharashtra v. Mayer Hans George, which held that certain statutory offenses do not require mens rea. The court ruled that section 276B falls into this category, and therefore, mens rea was not required for conviction. Conclusion: The court dismissed the revision petitions, concluding that: - There was a prima facie case of non-deduction/short deduction of tax. - A firm could be prosecuted under section 276B and punished with a fine. - The partners could be charged based on the evidence provided. - The charges were sufficiently detailed and not vague. - Mens rea was not required for an offense under section 276B.
|
