9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 70X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 02.05.2018 arising out of Economic Offence (Complaint) Case No. 17 of 2018, pending in the court of learned Presiding Officer, Special Court, (Economic Offence), Ranchi. 3. The Economic Offence Complaint Case No. 17 of 2018 was lodged alleging therein that complainant was posted as Deputy Commissioner (TDS) filed the complaint in his official capacity of the alleged offence committed under section 276B read with section 278B of Income Tax Act, 1961 and the petitioner's firm had deducted TDS to the tune of Rs. 2,02,117/- for the financial year 2015-16, Assessment year 2016-17 but failed to deposit the same with the department as per the provision of the Income Tax Act 1961. The petitioner is partner of the firm and he has also been made ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as received by the petitioner and the same was replied by letter dated 22.02.2017 in which the petitioner has stated the honest mistake and the amount deducted has already been deposited along with the interest with the Income Tax Department. He submits that the petitioner was not heard when the sanction order was passed. In this background, he submits that when the TDS amount along with interest has already been deposited there is no occasion to launch prosecution case against the petitioner. He submits that the amount was deposited on 11.5.2016 whereas the sanction order was passed on 14.02.2018 and prosecution was launched on 13.04.2018. He further submits that even no penalty proceeding is started as yet against the petitioner in view o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct from January, 2016 and when the notice was received by the petitioner, the petitioner has filed reply disclosing that the TDS amount along with interest has already been deposited on 11.5.2016 itself whereas sanction order was passed on 14.02.2018 and the prosecution was launched on 13.04.2018 i.e. after much delay of depositing the said TDS amount along with the interest. It is not a case that the prosecution was filed earlier and thereafter the T.D.S amount was deposited. Further there is no penalty proceeding initiated against the petitioner. In view of that, the Court finds that the amount of the TDS along with the interest has already been deposited and after lapse of time the said case was registered and the Court further finds th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the repetition of the offence. It also observed that. In most cases of criminal liability, the intention of the Legislature is that the penalty should serve as a deterrent." 7. In the case of K.C. Builders and Another v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, [2004] 265 ITR 562 (SC), the criminal case was held to be not survived in view of the fact that the penalty is struck down and in the case in hand even the penalty proceeding has not been initiated against the petitioner. How the amount is deposited and when sanction and prosecution have been initiated which has already been discussed hereinabove. The Court finds that in such a situation to allow the present proceeding to continue further will amount to abuse of process of law. 8. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
