2025 (5) TMI 1424 - HC - Income Tax

Cognizance of the offence punishable u/s 276B r/w sec 278B - Whether the offence under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961 is compoundable under Section 279(2) of the Act? - HELD THAT - The verbatim of Section 279 (2) makes it crystal clear that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act may also suo motu exercise their power of compounding the offence. The instructions to the subordinate authorities in terms of Section 119 of the Income Tax Act 1961 by the Central Board of Direct Tax is obviously for the purpose of proper administration of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. A form has been prescribed for an application to be made by any person desiring for compounding of any offence but even the instructions of the Central Board of Direct Taxes nowhere debars the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act to suo motu exercise the power of composition of the offences; more so when the amount has been deposited with stipulated interest before filing of the complaint. This Court is of the considered view that since the complainant did not file the complaint before deposit of the T.D.S. amount with interest by the petitioners and also not even immediately after that; may be with ignorance that such amount has been deposited; after a period of more than three years of the deposit of the said defaulted amount with stipulated interest thereon the complaint case was filed. In such facts of the case this Court is of the considered view that the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law. Therefore this is a fit case where the prayer of the petitioner as prayed for by the petitioners be allowed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

- Whether the prosecution initiated under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 against the petitioners for failure to deposit deducted T.D.S. to the credit of the Central Government is maintainable after the petitioners have deposited the deducted amount along with interest before the institution of the complaint?

- Whether the offence under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is compoundable under Section 279(2) of the Act, and if so, whether the power to compound can be exercised suo motu by senior Income Tax authorities even in absence of an application from the accused?

- Whether the continuation of criminal proceedings after deposit of the deducted T.D.S. amount with interest, and after a significant delay in institution of complaint, amounts to abuse of process of law?

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Maintainability of prosecution after deposit of deducted T.D.S. with interest before institution of complaint

Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents:

Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 penalizes failure to deposit deducted tax at source to the credit of the government within the prescribed time. Section 279(2) provides for compounding of offences under Chapter XXII, including offences under Section 276B. The Court also referred to precedent judgments by coordinate benches of the same High Court and the Patna High Court, notably the case of Sonali Autos (P) Ltd., which held that prosecution instituted after receipt of deducted T.D.S. with interest is not in accordance with law.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court examined the undisputed fact that the petitioners deposited the deducted T.D.S. amount of Rs. 21,72,670/- along with interest on 17.09.2014, which was after the due date of 30.04.2014 but before the complaint was filed on 13.04.2018. The Court emphasized that the purpose of Section 276B and the compounding provision under Section 279(2) is to deter failure in timely deposit of T.D.S., but also to allow the offence to be compounded if the amount is deposited before complaint institution.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The petitioners deposited the deducted amount with interest before the complaint was filed. The complaint was filed more than three years after the deposit. There was no dispute on the deposit itself.

Application of Law to Facts:

Since the petitioners had deposited the deducted amount with interest before the complaint was filed, the Court held that the prosecution was not maintainable and was contrary to the purpose of the compounding provisions. The Court relied on the principle that once the amount is deposited with interest, the offence should be compounded rather than prosecuted.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The State and the opposite party contended that since the petitioners did not apply for compounding as per the prescribed format (Form No. 1 under CBDT guidelines), prosecution was justified. The Court rejected this argument, reasoning that the power to compound is vested in senior Income Tax authorities and can be exercised suo motu, not solely upon an application by the accused.

Conclusions:

Prosecution under Section 276B after deposit of T.D.S. with interest before complaint institution is not maintainable. The offence is compoundable and should be compounded rather than prosecuted.

Issue 2: Power of senior Income Tax authorities to compound offences suo motu without application

Relevant Legal Framework:

Section 279(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 explicitly vests power in the Principal Chief Commissioner, Chief Commissioner, Principal Director General, or Director General of Income Tax to compound offences either before or after institution of proceedings. Section 119 of the Income Tax Act empowers the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) to issue instructions for administration of the Act.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court analyzed the statutory language of Section 279(2) and found that the power to compound offences is discretionary and may be exercised suo motu by senior officers. The Court held that the prescribed application format under CBDT guidelines is for administrative convenience and does not restrict the exercise of compounding power only to cases where an application is filed by the accused.

Key Evidence and Findings:

The petitioners had not filed any application for compounding, but had deposited the amount with interest. The complaint was filed despite this. The Court found no legal bar on the authorities exercising compounding power suo motu.

Application of Law to Facts:

The authorities could have compounded the offence suo motu upon deposit of the amount but failed to do so. This failure led to institution of prosecution, which the Court found unjustified.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The State and opposite party argued that absence of application by the petitioners justified complaint filing. The Court rejected this, clarifying that the power is not dependent on an application and may be exercised independently.

Conclusions:

The senior Income Tax authorities have the power to compound offences suo motu without an application, especially where the amount has been deposited with interest before complaint institution.

Issue 3: Whether continuation of criminal proceedings after deposit and delay in complaint amounts to abuse of process of law

Relevant Legal Framework:

The principle against abuse of process of law prohibits continuation of proceedings that are oppressive or unjust. The compounding provisions are intended to avoid unnecessary harassment and wastage of judicial and administrative resources.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning:

The Court noted that the complaint was filed more than three years after the petitioners deposited the deducted amount with interest. The delay and failure to compound the offence by authorities, coupled with the institution of prosecution after deposit, amounted to harassment and misuse of process.

Key Evidence and Findings:

Petitioners deposited the amount on 17.09.2014; complaint was filed on 13.04.2018. No compounding application was made by petitioners, and no suo motu compounding was done by authorities before complaint.

Application of Law to Facts:

The Court held that continuing criminal proceedings under such circumstances would be an abuse of process of law, defeating the legislative intent behind compounding provisions.

Treatment of Competing Arguments:

The State and opposite party opposed quashing of proceedings, but the Court prioritized the principle of preventing harassment and misuse of judicial process over procedural technicalities.

Conclusions:

Continuation of prosecution after deposit of T.D.S. with interest and after significant delay in complaint institution is an abuse of process and warrants quashing of proceedings.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

- "Section 279 (2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in no uncertain manner, vests the power upon the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or a Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act for compounding any offence either before or after institution of the proceedings."

- "The basic purpose of introduction of such provision of law is to create a deterrence against failure in deposit of the T.D.S. within the stipulated period. But it is obvious that, the very purpose of vesting the power of compounding the offence upon the senior officers ... is that in case the defaulting person deposits the amount before institution of the complaint, the offence is required to be compounded; instead of instituting a complaint and thereby harassing the person who has deposited the amount with stipulated interest before filing of the complaint and wasting the precious time of the courts as well as the officers concerned."

- "The instructions ... nowhere debars the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Director General or a Director General of Income Tax Act to suo motu exercise the power of composition of the offences; more so when the amount has been deposited with stipulated interest before filing of the complaint."

- "Since the complainant did not file the complaint before deposit of the T.D.S. amount with interest by the petitioners ... after a period of more than three years of the deposit ... the continuation of this criminal proceeding against the petitioners will amount to abuse of process of law."

- Final determination: The order taking cognizance and continuation of prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was quashed and set aside as the offence was compoundable and the amount with interest was deposited prior to complaint institution, making prosecution unwarranted and abusive of process.