TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether prosecution of the directors for failure to deduct or remit tax deducted at source under section 276B was maintainable without notice under section 2(35)(b) treating them as principal officers; (ii) Whether the delayed remittance of tax deducted at source was without reasonable cause or excuse; (iii) Whether the ingredients of cheating or attempt to cheat under sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code were made out; (iv) Whether the authorisation to prosecute was valid.
Issue (i): Whether prosecution of the directors for failure to deduct or remit tax deducted at source under section 276B was maintainable without notice under section 2(35)(b) treating them as principal officers.
Analysis: The statutory scheme of section 194A read with sections 200 and 204 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, fastened the obligation to deduct and remit tax at source on the company and its principal officer. The Court accepted the view that, for an offence under section 276B in the context of tax deducted at source, a director or managing director could not be treated as liable unless the Income-tax Officer had issued the notice contemplated by section 2(35)(b) expressing an intention to treat that person as the principal officer. The later insertion of section 278B did not displace that requirement for the relevant offence.
Conclusion: The prosecution against the directors without the statutory notice was not maintainable, and the acquittal on this ground was upheld in favour of the assessee.
Issue (ii): Whether the delayed remittance of tax deducted at source was without reasonable cause or excuse.
Analysis: The Court held that the evidence disclosed persistent losses, financial stringency, and carry-forward deficits in the company's accounts, and that the prosecution had not established beyond reasonable doubt that the delay was without reasonable cause or excuse. The burden of proving absence of reasonable cause or excuse lay on the prosecution, and the materials on record supported the conclusion that the company's default was not wilful in the penal sense required by section 276B.
Conclusion: The finding that the company had reasonable cause or excuse for the delayed remittance was sustained, and the acquittal was affirmed in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iii): Whether the ingredients of cheating or attempt to cheat under sections 420 and 511 of the Indian Penal Code were made out.
Analysis: The Court found that the allegation of cheating was vague and unsupported by convincing evidence. The materials showed that the creditor company had already assessed and paid tax on the relevant income, and the dispute did not establish any dishonest inducement or attempt to cheat the Revenue. On the facts proved, the criminal ingredients of sections 420 and 511 were absent.
Conclusion: The charge of cheating or attempt to cheat failed, and the acquittal on this count was maintained in favour of the assessee.
Issue (iv): Whether the authorisation to prosecute was valid.
Analysis: The Court accepted the trial court's view that the authorisation under section 279(1) was duly issued and was not vitiated for want of application of mind, and that the complaint was competent on that footing.
Conclusion: The authorisation was valid.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court found no error or perversity in the trial court's appreciation of evidence or application of law, and the acquittal of all accused on the charges brought by the Department was left undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for failure to deduct or remit tax deducted at source under section 276B, the managing director or director cannot be proceeded against as principal officer unless the statutory notice under section 2(35)(b) is issued where that determination is required, and conviction cannot follow unless the prosecution proves absence of reasonable cause or excuse beyond reasonable doubt.
TaxTMI 
