Just a moment...
Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the criminal proceeding and cognizance under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were liable to be quashed on the ground that the deducted tax was subsequently deposited with interest and the delay was supported by reasonable cause under section 278AA.
Analysis: The admitted position was that tax deducted at source was not deposited within time, but the entire amount was later deposited along with interest under section 201(1A). The delay was explained as an oversight by the accountant, which was noticed during audit and corrected promptly. The Court also noted the CBDT instruction that prosecution under section 276B should not normally be proposed where the amount involved and period of default are not substantial and the defaulted amount has since been deposited. On these facts, the Court held that the petitioner had shown reasonable cause within the meaning of section 278AA and that continuation of the prosecution would amount to harassment and abuse of process.
Conclusion: The cognizance order and the entire criminal proceeding were quashed in favour of the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: Where the assessee proves reasonable cause for delayed deposit of deducted tax and subsequently remits the tax with interest, prosecution for the default cannot be sustained.