TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
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 prosecution under Income Tax Act for failure to remit tax</h1> <h3>Dr. Viloo Patell And Avesthagen Limited Versus Income Tax Department</h3> Dr. Viloo Patell And Avesthagen Limited Versus Income Tax Department - TMI Issues:Prosecution under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for failure to remit tax deducted at source, validity of show-cause notice, application of mind in sanction order, and legality of prosecution for offences punishable with fine and imprisonment.Analysis:Issue 1: Prosecution under section 276-B of the Income Tax ActThe petitioners were sought to be prosecuted under section 276-B for failure to remit tax deducted at source during specific financial years. The petitioners challenged the prosecution on various grounds, including the legality of prosecuting individuals when the notice was issued to companies, and the absence of application of mind in the sanction order. The Supreme Court's decision in Assistant Commissioner v. Villiappa Taxtiles Ltd. was cited regarding criminal prosecution for offences punishable with fine and imprisonment.Issue 2: Validity of Show-Cause NoticeThe petitioners contended that the show-cause notice was issued to the Managing Director only, not to the Company, which they argued made the prosecution defective. The court analyzed the notices issued and found that they were not show-cause notices but rather communications to inform the Managing Director of the Company's status. The court clarified that the notice was not a ground to quash the proceedings.Issue 3: Application of Mind in Sanction OrderThe petitioners argued that the sanction order for prosecution did not reflect proper application of mind as the tax deducted at source had been remitted before the order was issued. The court examined the sanction order and found that it detailed the facts, legal provisions, and gave the defaulting party an opportunity to make payments. The court also noted that the remittances made by the petitioners were not brought to the notice of the Central Government, thus rejecting this argument.Issue 4: Legality of Prosecution for Offences Punishable with Fine and ImprisonmentThe petitioners raised the argument that prosecution for offences punishable with fine and imprisonment, as per the Act, was not sustainable. The court referred to the Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of Enforcement case, where it was held that companies could be prosecuted for serious offences even when imprisonment was mandatory, as the court could impose a fine instead. The court emphasized the importance of holding corporate bodies accountable for serious financial irregularities.In conclusion, the court dismissed the petition, finding no grounds to accede to the prayer made by the petitioners, and upheld the prosecution under section 276-B of the Income Tax Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
