9911796707
TMI Blog1978 (12) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r of acquittal of the two respondents, M/s. Taurus Equipment (P.) Ltd. and its director, S. K. Agrawalla, dated 16th December, 1971. The two respondents were put on trial under ss. 276(b) and 276(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961 (briefly " the Act ") for having failed to file the return for the financial year 1964-65, within the prescribed time limit as required by s. 206 of the Act read with r. 35(1) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany to the effect that the company failed to pay the sum deducted as tax to the credit of the Central Government and hence the company should be held liable and should be punished. On behalf of the respondents, Mr. Rajgarhia raised a law point that in view of the provisions of s. 276 of the Act, it must be held that no offence was committed by the respondents. It may be stated here that s. 276 ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted as tax is no offence unless it is further proved by the department that the defaulter failed to do so without reasonable cause or excuse. In my opinion, this contention has merit and must be accepted as valid. It is supported by the plain provisions of s. 276 of the Act. The words " fails without reasonable cause or excuse " show that means rea is an ingredient to be proved by the department b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned counsel appearing for the appellant argued that in the present case the defence of the respondents was that they had filed the return and deposited the money within time and this dishonest conduct leads to the conclusion that there was no reasonable cause or excuse for late filing of the return or late deposit of the money. I am not prepared to agree with this contention. There is absolutely n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
