TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
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>Court upholds complaints for delayed tax filing, affirms liability of partners in registered firm. Audit report not a defense.</h1> The court upheld the complaints against the accused for delayed filing of income tax returns, rejecting arguments of lacking necessary allegations and ... Failure To File Return In Time, Income Tax Act, Offences And Prosecution Issues:1. Allegations against accused for delayed filing of income tax returns.2. Liability of partners in a registered firm under section 278B of the Income-tax Act.3. Impact of audit report filing on penalty proceedings.4. Validity of sanction order for filing complaints.Analysis:1. The judgment deals with petitions filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to quash complaints against the accused for delayed filing of income tax returns. The allegations state that the accused willfully delayed filing returns for various assessment years, leading to penalty proceedings. The complaints satisfy the requirements of section 278B of the Act, which holds individuals responsible for company offenses. The court rejected the argument that necessary allegations were lacking against certain partners and upheld the complaints based on the allegations presented.2. The judgment references legal precedents to establish that partners responsible for business operations can be held liable for offenses committed by the company. It distinguishes cases where no offense is constituted against directors from cases where allegations support criminal liability for all partners. In this instance, the complaints contain sufficient allegations to establish an offense against all partners, dismissing the comparison to cases where liability was not clearly established against all accused parties.3. The judgment addresses the argument that the filing of audit reports along with income tax returns should negate any claims of wilful delay. It clarifies that the failure to file audit reports within the specified time and the subsequent penalty is distinct from the delayed filing of income tax returns under different sections of the Act. The court emphasizes that the audit report filing does not excuse the delayed submission of income tax returns, maintaining the validity of penalty proceedings for the latter offense.4. The validity of the sanction order for filing the complaints was challenged based on the alleged failure to consider an order by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The court dismissed this argument, stating that the observations in the Commissioner's order regarding audit report filing do not impact the delayed filing of income tax returns. The judgment concludes that none of the submissions presented by the petitioners are valid, resulting in the dismissal of the petitions and upholding the complaints against the accused for delayed filing of income tax returns.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
