2024 (8) TMI 47 - HC - Income Tax

Offence punishable u/s 276B r/w Sec.278AA - accused are running an education institution at Coimbatore and are liable to deduct tax at source in respect of expenditure covered by the provisions of Chapter XVIIB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 - significant failure on the part of accused to pay the tax deducted at source to the Government account within the time limit as required under law - respondent raised objections stating that the delay is caused in paying the tax amount - HELD THAT - Admittedly, the fact reveals that there is a delay on the part of petitioners and they have subsequently remitted the tax amount and delay is not caused wantonly, but only due to the concerned staff left the concern on maternity leave, the delay was caused. Furthermore, it was subsequently rectified and thereafter, they have deducted the tax amount properly and remitted the same without any delay. So, on seeing the conduct of petitioners, the proceedings initiated against them is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, these Criminal Original Petitions are allowed and the proceedings initiated on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore is quashed.

Summary

Issues:
Seeking to quash charge sheets in C.C.Nos.1752, 1754, 1755, and 1753 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

Analysis:
The petitioners, ranked as A1 to A6, were accused of violating Sec.276 B r/w Sec.278 AA of the Income Tax Act by failing to deduct tax at source in a timely manner for their education institution in Coimbatore. The respondent initiated a complaint against them for belatedly remitting the tax deducted at source, causing a significant delay. The prosecution highlighted a seven-month delay in each deduction, contrary to the required timeframe of 6 or 7 days from the last day of the month, thereby violating Sec.200(1) of the Income Tax Act.

In response, the petitioners' counsel argued that the delay was not intentional but occurred due to the absence of the staff member responsible for accounts, who was on maternity leave. They emphasized that proper instructions were not given during that period, leading to the delay in remitting the tax amount. The petitioners sought to quash the proceedings, asserting that they eventually paid the tax amount.

The Government Advocate representing the respondent contended that the delay in tax payment rendered the petitioners liable for prosecution under Sec.276B r/w Sec.278 AA of the Income Tax Act. However, upon examination, it was established that the delay was not deliberate but a result of the staff member's absence on maternity leave. The petitioners rectified the delay by deducting and remitting the tax amount promptly thereafter, demonstrating their compliance with the law. Considering these factors, the court concluded that the petitioners' conduct warranted quashing the proceedings initiated against them. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Original Petitions and quashed the proceedings in C.C.Nos. 1752, 1754, 1755, and 1753 of 2020 on the file of Judicial Magistrate No.III, Coimbatore.

Conclusion:
The judgment highlights the importance of compliance with tax deduction and remittance timelines under the Income Tax Act. It underscores the significance of rectifying inadvertent delays promptly and the impact of mitigating circumstances, such as staff shortages, on legal proceedings. The decision to quash the proceedings emphasizes the court's consideration of the petitioners' actions in rectifying the delay and complying with the law, ultimately leading to a favorable outcome for the petitioners.