9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (1) TMI 1440X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... entral Government account in time. There is a delay of payment on 39 occasions as per the online data available. On the basis of several delayed payments, the complainant claims that the petitioners have deliberately not credited tax to the Central Government, which is an offence punishable under section 276B of Income Tax Act. 3. The Income Tax Officer addressed a letter dated 16.01.2013 stating that the TDS payable was Rs.77,37,097/- which was delayed. The amount is towards several delayed payments. The interest payable for the delay was Rs.13,36,278/-. However, the interest paid was Rs.12,37,164/-. Accordingly, balance amount of Rs.99,114/- had to be paid under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act. 4. On 19.03.2013, the remaining amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 57 SC 397 and argued that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that a humane and considerate administration of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act would go a long way in allaying the apprehensions of the assesses. He further argued the Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts held that once the Tribunal had set aside the order of concealment and penalty, there would be no concealment in the eyes of law. Therefore, the criminal prosecution cannot be proceeded with. Learned Senior Counsel also relied on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of S.G.Kale v. Union of India (2001) 168 CTR (Raj) 214, wherein under similar circumstances, the proceedings were quashed. 7. On the other hand, A.Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel appearing for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s contended on behalf of the Company that when a statute fixes criminal liability on corporate bodies and also provides for imposition of substantive sentence, it could not apply to persons other than natural persons and companies and corporations cannot be covered by the Act. The majority, however, repelled the contention holding that juristic person is also subject to criminal liability under the relevant law. Only thing is that in case of substantive sentence, the order is not enforceable and juristic person cannot be ordered to suffer imprisonment. Other consequences, however, would ensue e.g. payment of fine, etc." 8. He also relied on the Division Bench order of this Court in W.P.No.25903 of 2022 and batch, dated 14.09.2023, wherein ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the learned counsel for the Income Tax Department in Madhumilan Syntex Limited's case (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with the correctness of the complaint filed. Though the entire amount in the case was paid prior to launching the prosecution, the Hon'ble Supreme Court found that filing of the complaint was in accordance with law. However, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clarified in the said judgment that they have not decided the case on merits but only the maintainability of the criminal complaint. 13. The entire amount of TDS along with interest was paid to the income tax department. The delay occurred on 39 occasions and since the payments were delayed, the interest component was collected. The petitioners had clarified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
