2008 (2) TMI 324 - HC - Income Tax

Non-deduction of tax at source on the payments made to the subcontractors violation of section 194(C)(2) - A perusal of assessment order proves that TDS had been deducted and income of sub-contractors had been counted as income of the Partnership Firm - averment made in the complaint by revenue is falsified - there is not even an allegation in the evidence that TDS had not been deposited in time without any reasonable cause or excuse - revision petition of revenue is dismissed

Summary

Issues:
1. Violation of Section 194(C) of the Income Tax Act and Section 278(B) - Discharge of respondents challenged by the Income Tax Officer.
2. Dispute regarding deduction and deposit of TDS as per assessment order of the Firm for the financial year.
3. Lack of appearance by both petitioner and respondent within the specified period.
4. Review of the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.

Issue 1: Violation of Income Tax Act Sections:
The court analyzed the revision petition challenging the discharge of the respondents for the alleged violation of Section 194(C) of the Income Tax Act and Section 278(B). The judge highlighted the complainant's claim that the revision petitioners failed to deduct 2% income tax on payments to subcontractors, leading to a violation. However, the assessment order exhibited by the complainant revealed contradictory information. The assessment order indicated that TDS had indeed been deducted and deposited, and the subcontractors' payments were considered bogus. The judge emphasized the importance of proving non-deduction and non-deposit of TDS without reasonable cause before launching a prosecution under Section 194(C)(2).

Issue 2: Dispute Over TDS Deduction and Deposit:
The Income Tax Officer, Jind, filed the revision petition due to the non-deposit of tax deducted within the specified period, alleging a violation of Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act punishable under Section 276(b). The case pertained to the assessment year 1986-87. Despite the grounds raised by the petitioner, no appearance was made by either party within the 22-year period. The judge reviewed the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, finding no infirmity warranting intervention by the Revisional Court.

Issue 3: Lack of Appearance by Parties:
Both the petitioner and respondent failed to appear within the specified period, indicating disinterest in pursuing the matter further. This lack of participation from either party influenced the court's decision-making process.

Issue 4: Review of the Order:
After careful consideration, the court dismissed the present revision petition, concluding that the order of the Additional Sessions Judge, Jind, did not exhibit any flaws necessitating revision. The judge affirmed the decision of the lower court, thereby upholding the discharge of the respondents in the case.