9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (4) TMI 1857X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners have committed the offence punishable under Section 276B(a) r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act 1961. Therefore the grounds raised by the petitioners cannot be considered and the petition is liable to be dismissed. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial Court is directed to complete the trial proceeding within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of a copy of this Order. - CRL.O.P.No. 18649 of 2017 And Crl.MP.Nos. 11357 & 11358 of 2017 - - - Dated:- 5-4-2019 - Mr. Justice G. K. Ilanthiraiyan For the Petitioners : Mr. K.Ravi For the Respondent : Ms.M.Sheela Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax) ORDER This petition is directed as against the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.134 of 2017 on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Economic offences-I, Egmore, Chennai. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are arraigned as A1 to A5. The complaint has been lodged as against them under Section 276B(a) r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act 1961. He further submitted that the complaint itself not maintainable, untenable, since no prima facie case has been m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioners failed to remit the tax deducted at source to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed period of time. Therefore, the respondent/complainant issued show cause notice call upon the petitioners regarding the default in depositing TDS. On receipt of the same the petitioners issued reply, wherein they stated that they did not have proper accounting challans for the TDS deducted by them. They also admitted the mistake of belated payment of TDS and sought pardon for the same. They also pleaded ignorance of the provisions of law under Section 276B of Income Tax Act. Further they also admitted that the directors fell under the highest bracket of 30% of tax which implies that they had sufficient source of income and hence there was no need to withhold the TDS so deducted. 3.1. Further she submitted that the directors received remuneration in the form of salaries, rent and other benefits but the TDS so deducted was not remitted to the coffers of the government as mandated under the law. In fact, the petitioners filed a compounding application seeking to compound the offences committed by them and thereafter withdrew the same citing financial constraint. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tors. During the final year 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11 had deducted TDS to the tune of ₹ 16,46,579/- under various sections of Chapter XVII B of the Income Tax Act 1961, from payment made to various parties. After deducting of the said tax, the petitioners failed to deposit the same to the credit of Central Government within the stipulated period. Therefore, the respondent issued show cause notice to the petitioners. Since the reply of the petitioners is not satisfactory, the respondent after obtaining sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings as against the petitioners. 6. It is also seen that the first petitioner company filed compounding application thereafter, it was withdrawn at later stage, due to financial constraints. In fact, the petitioners admitted the belated payment made by them to the respondent as such the respondent initiated proceedings under the Income Tax Act, as the petitioners have breached the provisions of Sections 200 and 204 r/w Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules. Though the petitioners have paid the taxes in the assessment proceedings, the same does not hold good in law as the assessment proceedi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s under : (i) The scope and purport of interest/penalty proceedings and prosecution under the Income-tax Act are separate and independent. The existence or the absence of the one or the other is no bar to any one of them ; (ii) simply charging of interest by the Department under Section 201(1A) of the Act, for the delay in the payment of the amount to the Central Government, does not obliterate the prosecution ; (iii) the non-initiation of penalty proceedings does not lead to a presumption that the default in payment was for good and sufficient reasons or that the assessee was deprived to establish that there were good and sufficient reasons for the default in payment ; (iv) non-initiation of penalty proceedings in a case cannot be equated with a case where the penalty proceedings were initiated and a finding is recorded by the competent authority that there were good and sufficient reasons for the delay in payment ; (v) there is no statutory requirement either under Section 279 or under any other provision of the Act to give a show-cause notice to the assessee before criminal proceedings are initiated against him. In other words, a notice or a right of bei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
