TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court rules on tax deduction - no offense post-1989</h1> <h3>Narendrakumar Khandelwal And Others Versus Union Of India And Another.</h3> Narendrakumar Khandelwal And Others Versus Union Of India And Another. - [2003] 259 ITR 593, 180 CTR 553, 128 TAXMANN 60 Issues:Conviction under section 276B/278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for failure to deduct and deposit tax deducted at source within time frame. Interpretation of the amended provisions of the Act post-April 1, 1989. Application of the principle of retrospective applicability of penal provisions.Analysis:The case involved the applicants, partners of a business entity, who were convicted for failing to deduct and deposit tax deducted at source within the prescribed time frame. The trial court and the appellate court upheld the conviction. The applicants argued that the amended provisions of the Income-tax Act post-April 1, 1989, made failure to deduct tax at source a penalty offense rather than a punishable offense. They contended that the delay in depositing the tax was unintentional and not deliberate, thus no offense was committed. The prosecution relied on the charge that the applicants failed to deduct and deposit tax from payments made to various creditors for the assessment year 1986-87.The applicants further argued that the omission of section 276B from the Act, replaced with section 271C post-April 1, 1989, meant that failure to deduct tax at source attracted a penalty rather than prosecution. They cited relevant case laws to support their position. The non-applicants contended that there was no saving clause in the amended Act for retrospective applicability, and thus the complaint was filed under the old law, making the applicants liable. The Supreme Court's interpretation of the effect of repealing a provision without a saving clause was considered, emphasizing that pending proceedings may not continue under the new provision without a saving clause for ongoing cases.The Income-tax Department argued for the application of section 6 of the General Clauses Act for saving pending proceedings in the absence of specific provisions in the amended Act. However, the Supreme Court clarified that section 6 applies to repeal and not omission of provisions. As section 276B was completely omitted post-April 1, 1989, it was deemed as if it never existed, and no prosecution could be initiated or continued under it. Therefore, the conviction and sentence of the applicants were set aside, as failure to deduct tax deducted at source was not an offense post-April 1, 1989, but attracted a penalty instead.In conclusion, the judgment allowed the revision in favor of the applicants based on the retrospective interpretation of the amended provisions of the Income-tax Act, clarifying that failure to deduct tax at source post-April 1, 1989, attracted a penalty and not prosecution. The omission of section 276B without a saving clause meant that the applicants could not be held guilty of the offense, and their conviction was overturned.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
