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>High Court reinstates conviction for tax non-remittance, rejecting administrative excuses. Delay in remittance deemed non-compliance.</h1> The High Court overturned the appellate court's acquittal in a case involving a company's non-remittance of tax deducted at source. The court found that ... Offences And Prosecution Issues:Appeal against acquittal in a case involving non-remittance of tax deducted at source by a company.Analysis:The case involved an appeal filed by the Income-tax Officer against an order of acquittal passed by the appellate court. The accused, a company, was charged with not remitting tax deducted at source to the Central Government within the stipulated time frame, thereby committing an offence under the Income-tax Act. The trial court convicted the accused, imposing a fine, but the appellate court disagreed and acquitted the accused, leading to the appeal. The High Court noted that the accused had delayed remitting the deducted amounts significantly beyond the prescribed one-week period, indicating non-compliance with the rules.The High Court found that the absence of specific words like 'without reasonable cause or excuse' in the charge did not invalidate the trial, as all other relevant details were included. The court emphasized that the charge framing omission did not prejudice the accused. Additionally, the court highlighted that although no witness explicitly testified using the exact phrase 'without reasonable cause or excuse,' the complaint clearly alleged such non-remittance. The court reasoned that the delay in remittance, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting a valid excuse, indicated the accused's non-compliance with the law.The court rejected the argument that the delay was justified due to administrative reasons, as the accused failed to provide substantial evidence or call witnesses to support this claim. The court distinguished a precedent where the absence of specific language led to an acquittal, emphasizing the distinct circumstances of the present case. Ultimately, the High Court held that the appellate court's acquittal was erroneous, reinstating the trial court's conviction and setting aside the acquittal order.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
