Unexplained delay in remitting tax deducted at source can prove statutory default; omission in charge does not vitiate conviction absent prejudice.

Failure to remit tax deducted at source within the prescribed one-week period, coupled with no evidence of reasonable cause or excuse, constituted the statutory default and sustained the prosecution under the Income-tax law. The court also held that omission of the words "without reasonable cause or excuse" in the charge did not by itself vitiate the trial where the accusation was otherwise clear and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown. On that basis, the appellate acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether failure to remit tax deducted at source within the prescribed time, without reasonable cause or excuse, constituted the offence alleged under the Income-tax Act and the Income-tax Rules. (ii) Whether omission to mention the words "without reasonable cause or excuse" in the charge vitiated the conviction.

Issue (i): Whether failure to remit tax deducted at source within the prescribed time, without reasonable cause or excuse, constituted the offence alleged under the Income-tax Act and the Income-tax Rules.

Analysis: The tax deducted at source was remitted only after substantial delay, though the governing rule required remittance within one week from deduction. The explanation offered for the delay was found to be unacceptable, and no evidence was led to establish any reasonable cause or excuse. The omission was treated as a statutory default proved on the record.

Conclusion: The offence was proved and the acquittal could not be sustained; the finding was against the assessee.

Issue (ii): Whether omission to mention the words "without reasonable cause or excuse" in the charge vitiated the conviction.

Analysis: The absence of those words in the charge, by itself, was held not to invalidate the trial where the remaining particulars clearly conveyed the accusation and no prejudice to the accused was shown. Reference was made to the principle that defects or omissions in a charge do not vitiate proceedings unless failure of justice is established.

Conclusion: The defect in the charge did not vitiate the conviction and was against the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The appellate acquittal was set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for failure to remit tax deducted at source, substantial unexplained delay can establish absence of reasonable cause or excuse, and an omission in the charge does not invalidate the conviction unless it causes prejudice or failure of justice.

---