9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 196X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... DS return in respect of Tax deducted at source on different nature of payment from its Patna Office at Patna having TAN- PTNS00778S. As per scheme of Section 276-B of the Act and the details available on the ITD system, the list of cases/deductors, who have failed to pay to the credit of Central Govt. the tax deducted by them has been obtained by the complainant. 3. From perusal of TDS return filed by the accused, it has been gathered by the complainant that TDS amounting to Rs. 1,43,029/- had not been deposited in time to the credit of Central Govt. for financial year 2009-2010. Thus, there was delay of 481 days without any reasonable cause. 4. The delay in filing e-TDS is covered by prosecution under Section 276 B of the Act for the failure on the part of deductors to deposit the TDS to the credit of Central Govt. 5. Accused Nos.2, 3 and 4 are the day to day in charge of the conduct of business of Accused No.1. Accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 had full knowledge regarding non payment of TDS for the financial year 2009-10 and have committed offence under Section 276 B read with 278 B of the Act and the accused have rendered themselves liable for punishment under Section 276 B of the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioner in the financial year 2009-2010 made certain payments on various dates, totaling to Rs. 12,25,144/- towards interest (other than 'interest on securities') and commission and while crediting the said sums, duly deducted tax at source to the tune of Rs. 1,43,029/- under Section 194 A and 194 H of the Act respectively. 11. Due to oversight on the part of the Accountant, who was appointed to deal with the Accounts and Income Tax matters, the petitioner could not deposit the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,43,029/- with the Central Government within the specified time limit. Subsequently, at the time of audit of Books of Accounts in August, 2010, this mistake was noticed by the Statutory Auditors of the petitioner-company. The petitioner out of total amount of Rs. 1,43,029/- so deducted under Section 194 A and 194 H of the Act, paid a sum of Rs. 41,029/- on 07.09.2010 and thereafter paid Rs. 1,02,000/- on 20.09.2010. Owing to the delay in payment, the petitioner while paying the said sum also deposited interest amounting to Rs. 23,595/- as required under Section 201 (1A) of the Act. 12. Provisions of Section 201 (1A) of the Act provides for payment of tax deducted along with interest at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said instruction has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the reply to Counter Affidavit. 16. Counsel for the petitioner has finally submitted that the instant prosecution is mechanical and contrary to the instructions issued by the CBDT and is wholly unsustainable in law. Reasonable cause would mean a cause which prevents a reasonable man of ordinary prudence acting under normal circumstances, without negligence or inaction or want of bonafides. Oversight on the part of the Accountant, who was appointed to deal with the Accounts and Income Tax matters, cannot be termed as anything but a reasonable cause and such defaults are often committed in due course of business. 17. Counsel for the petitioner has relied on the decision of this Court dated 30.12.2009 passed in Cr. Misc. No.36697 of 2007, wherein, this Court was pleased to quash the order taking cognizance on the ground that due tax along with interest had been paid. 18. Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that in similar situation in the case of Bee Gee Motors & Tractors Vs. ITO (P & H) reported in [1996] 218 ITR 155 (P & H), Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court was pleased to quash the criminal complaint when the amou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,43,029/- duly deducted at source for the financial year 2009-10 within specified time with the Central Government, but the aforesaid amount has been deposited by the petitioner along with interest on various dates in the year 2010 when the mistake was noticed by the petitioner at the time of audit of Books of Accounts in 2010. Prosecution has been launched against the petitioner after the lapse of three years on 14.05.2013 as a consequence of sanction order passed under Section 279 (1) of the Act (Annexure-3) on 31.03.2013, in contravention of the instructions bearing F. No.255/339/79-IT (Inv.) dated 28.05.1980 issued by the CBDT in this regard. 24. Section 278 AA postulates an express bar on punishment under Section(s) 276 A, 276 AB or 276 B of the Act, if an assesasee proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure. 25. Section 278 AA of the Act is reproduced herein below: "278AA. Punishment not to be imposed in certain cases.--- Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of section 276 A, section 276 AB, [or section 276 B], no person shall be punishable for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for suc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
