2013 (10) TMI 1027 - HC - Income Tax

Offence under sections 276B read with section 278B - failure to remit income-tax deducted at source - Condonation of delay application - Delay in filing the complaint Held that - Complainant had listed 22 documents along with the complaint. Those documents were on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Coimbatore. Therefore, the complainant could not produce the same before the trial court within a reasonable time. Therefore, the delay had not been caused by the complainant since the documents were in judicial custody in some other case. Besides this, the documents are not created ones. Therefore, the character of the prosecution case had not been changed. The complainant had knocked the doors of the judicial forum for their remedy. Hence, their case has to be decided on the merits and justice should be rendered to the parties concerned. Therefore, a complete trial is absolutely necessary Therefore, restored on the file of the Judicial Magistrate, Mettupalayam, for disposal on the merits

Summary

Issues:
1. Failure to remit income-tax deducted at source into the Government account from dividend paid to the shareholders.
2. Dismissal of the complaint by the trial court without completing the evidence.
3. Delay and lapse in producing documentary evidence by the complainant.
4. Request for restoration of the case on the file of the trial court for proper adjudication.

Analysis:
1. The revision petitioner, an Income-tax Officer, filed a case against three accused for not remitting income-tax deducted at source from dividend payments into the Government account. The delay in payment was highlighted, leading to charges under sections 276B and 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The accused were alleged to have willfully failed to remit the tax, constituting an offence punishable under the Act.

2. The complainant presented witnesses and documentary evidence, including a sanction order to proceed with the prosecution case. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint citing the complainant's failure to produce evidence. The dismissal was under section 245 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, resulting in the discharge of all accused. Subsequent appeals were rejected, leading to the filing of a revision petition.

3. The delay in producing documentary evidence was contested by both parties. The complainant argued that the documents were with the Chief Judicial Magistrate and could not be presented promptly. The court acknowledged the genuine nature of the documents and ruled that the delay was not caused by the complainant. The need for a complete trial to ensure justice was emphasized.

4. Considering the submissions and the impugned order, the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to restore the case and proceed with it on the merits. The court stressed the importance of a fair trial and the resolution of issues through proper adjudication. The revision petition was allowed, and the original complaint was restored for disposal on its merits within a specified timeframe.

This detailed analysis highlights the legal proceedings, challenges faced by the complainant, and the court's decision to restore the case for a fair trial and proper adjudication.