9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the criminal proceedings under section 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, should be quashed. 2. Validity of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax u/s 279(1) directing prosecution. 3. Necessity of issuing a notice before launching prosecution. Summary of Judgment: Issue 1: Quashing of Criminal Proceedings The petitioners sought to quash the criminal proceedings initiated against them for failing to deposit tax deducted at source (TDS) within the prescribed time u/s 276B read with section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The prosecution argued that the petitioners were obligated to deposit the TDS within the stipulated period as per sections 194A and 200 of the Act, read with rule 30(1)(b)(i), (ii) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. The petitioners contended that the assessing authority's satisfaction with charging interest u/s 201(1A) was sufficient and that launching criminal prosecution was an abuse of the process of the court. The court rejected this argument, stating that the scope and purport of interest/penalty proceedings and prosecution under the Income-tax Act are separate and independent, and the existence or absence of one is no bar to the other. The court concluded that criminal prosecution could be launched if the ingredients of the offence u/s 276B were made out, irrespective of whether penalty proceedings were initiated. Issue 2: Validity of the Commissioner's Order u/s 279(1) The petitioners challenged the validity of the Commissioner's order u/s 279(1) directing prosecution, alleging it was done without application of mind and based on non-existent facts. The court held that this argument could be properly raised before the trial court at the appropriate time and did not provide grounds for quashing the proceedings at this stage. Issue 3: Necessity of Issuing a Notice Before Prosecution The petitioners argued that they should have been given notice to explain their position before launching prosecution, especially since the delay in depositing the TDS was not abnormal. The court rejected this argument, stating that there is no statutory requirement under the Act to issue a show-cause notice before initiating criminal proceedings. The court emphasized that the only requirement for initiating criminal proceedings is provided u/s 279, which mandates that prosecution should be at the instance of the Commissioner. Conclusion: The court dismissed the petitions, summarizing the legal position as follows: 1. The scope and purport of interest/penalty proceedings and prosecution under the Income-tax Act are separate and independent. 2. Charging of interest by the Department does not obliterate the prosecution. 3. Non-initiation of penalty proceedings does not lead to the presumption that the default was for good and sufficient reasons. 4. Non-initiation of penalty proceedings cannot be equated with a case where penalty proceedings were initiated and a finding of good and sufficient reasons was recorded. 5. There is no statutory requirement for issuing a show-cause notice before launching criminal proceedings under the Income-tax Act. The court also noted that the offence u/s 276B read with section 278B is compoundable, and the petitioners are free to approach the concerned authority for compounding the offence.
|
