2001 (9) TMI 88

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....deducted at source for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. A-1 is the partnership firm and A-2 is arrayed as an accused in his capacity as the partner of the said firm. There is no dispute from either side that for the assessment years referred to above. A-1 firm deducted tax at source, but however, they have not paid it in time. It is also not in dispute that the tax deducted at source, namely, Rs.17,799, Rs.10,800, Rs.9,450 and Rs.33,860, respectively, in each of the four appeals have been deposited with the Revenue with a delay of 40 months, 28 months, 40 months and 33 months, respectively. The learned trial judge acquitted the accused basing his conclusion, on a reading of section 276B of the Income-tax Act as in the statute boo....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... refunded to the depositor himself on the ground that the depositor is not liable to pay tax. These excuses, in my opinion, would not be of any use to the accused firm. The accused firm had deducted the tax and the firm is legally bound to pay it over to the Government. The fact that the firm is running at a loss cannot come to the advantage of the accused with reference to the funds of the depositor, namely, the tax deducted at source which would have otherwise been payable to the depositor. As already stated, the two excuses put forward by the accused firm cannot be excuses in the eye of law to avoid the liability that has to be fastened upon him under section 276B of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, I have no doubt at all in my mind that t....