Prosecution under sections 276B and 278B quashed for delayed TDS deposit with maximum 394-day delay adequately explained

HC quashed prosecution proceedings under sections 276B and 278B against petitioners for delayed TDS deposit ranging from 15 days to 394 days during FY 2019-20. Court held maximum delay of 394 days was adequately explained due to insolvency proceedings and COVID-19 restrictions. Following precedents in Dev Multicom and D.N. Homes cases, court found prosecution initiated after TDS amount with interest was already received by authorities, making continuation of proceedings unjustified.

---

---

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are quashing of a complaint case registered under Sections-276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, delay in depositing TDS amount for the Financial Year 2019-20, sanction under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act for prosecuting the petitioners, and the applicability of Circular dated 24.04.2008 for prosecution cases.

Issue 1: Quashing of Complaint Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of the complaint case registered under Sections-276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. They were aggrieved by the order taking cognizance of the offences and the sanction for prosecuting them. The delay in depositing the TDS amount was the crux of the case, with the petitioners contending that the delay was due to market conditions and the impact of insolvency proceedings. The petitioners argued that the COVID-19 pandemic further hindered their ability to deposit the TDS amount on time. Despite explanations provided by the petitioners, the opposite parties proceeded with the complaint.

Issue 2: Delay in TDS Deposit:
The opposite parties alleged that the petitioners violated Sections-276B and 278B of the Act by not depositing the TDS amount for the Financial Year 2019-20 within the prescribed period. The delays ranged from 15 days to 394 days, leading to the sanction for prosecuting the petitioners. The petitioners contended that the delay was due to financial difficulties and the impact of insolvency proceedings, along with the COVID-19 pandemic.

Issue 3: Applicability of Circular dated 24.04.2008:
The petitioners relied on Circular No F No 285/90/2008-IT(Inv-I)/05 dated 24.04.2008 to argue that the benefit of the circular should have been extended to them. The circular outlined the processing of potential prosecution cases, including offences u/s 276B for failure to pay taxes deducted at source to the government. The petitioners cited this circular to support their argument against the prosecution initiated by the opposite parties.

Judgment Summary:
The High Court considered the arguments presented by both parties, emphasizing the explanations provided by the petitioners for the delay in depositing the TDS amount. The Court noted that the delays were well explained, especially in light of the company's financial difficulties and the impact of the insolvency proceedings and the COVID-19 pandemic. Referring to relevant judgments, the Court concluded that the prosecution initiated against the petitioners after receiving the TDS amount with interest was not sustainable under the law. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the proceedings against the petitioners in the complaint case.

This summary provides a detailed breakdown of the issues involved in the judgment and the Court's decision regarding each issue, including the quashing of the complaint case, the delay in TDS deposit, and the applicability of the Circular dated 24.04.2008.

---