Criminal Revision Petitions Dismissed for Late Tax Deposit - Liability Stands

The Criminal Revision Petitions challenging the prosecution under sections 194A and 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late deposit of tax deducted at source were dismissed by Judge G. S. Chahal. The judge held that the late deposit of tax did not absolve the company and its officers from criminal liability, emphasizing that the offence was complete on the due date for deposit. Despite eventual deposit and the absence of a penalty from the Income Tax Department, the judge maintained that criminal liability persisted. The case was directed to proceed to trial before the Magistrate.

---

---

Issues: Prosecution under section 194A and 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for late deposit of tax deducted at source.

In the judgment delivered by Judge G. S. Chahal, the case involved 11 connected Criminal Revision Petitions challenging an order by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur, dated July 10, 1987. The prosecution was initiated under section 194A read with section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against the petitioners for late deposit of tax deducted at source. The Income Tax Officer found that the company had paid interest to creditors during the assessment year and had defaulted in depositing the tax deducted at source for 31 months. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hoshiarpur, initially discharged the petitioner and the company, but the order was set aside by the Additional Sessions Judge based on a previous judgment. The petitioner argued that no offence was committed as the tax amount was eventually deposited, no penalty was imposed by the Income Tax Department, and there was no plea in the complaint regarding the petitioner's responsibility to the company's business.

The judge rejected the petitioner's contentions, emphasizing that the late deposit of tax deducted at source did not absolve the company and its officers from criminal liability. The judge clarified that the offence was complete on the due date for deposit, regardless of the eventual deposit. The judge also noted that the imposition of only interest by the Income Tax Officer did not remove the criminal liability. While the complaint did not explicitly state the petitioner's responsibility to the company's business, the judge left the question open for further consideration during trial. Ultimately, the judge found no merit in the criminal revisions and dismissed them, directing the parties to appear before the trial Magistrate on a specified date.

---