TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (4) TMI 1857
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....against the petitioners. The petitioners have remitted the TDS amount on rents and salaries paid. The details of TDS remittance with the department were also filed with this petition. Therefore, the petitioners are not default in remittance of TDS amount paid, as such need not to launch prosecution after accepting the TDS amount and none of the provisions attracted as against the petitioners to proceed further under the Income Tax Act. 2.1. He further submitted that once assessment completed to the satisfaction of the authority, there was no withholding of the information or suppressing of the income or evasion of tax, and it is not within the jurisdiction of the revenue to initiate criminal action. He further submitted that time limit for concluding the assessment proceedings is two years from the end of the assessment year. Therefore, the respondent could not have been initiated action under Section 276 B(a) r/w 278 B of the Income Tax Act, as there was no willful attempt to evade payment of TDS amount. Further the amount was already paid and the assessment was also completed, as such the evasion of tax does not arise. Therefore, he prayed for quashment of the entire proceeding....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....corded sanction after going through the relevant materials and reply of the petitioners to prosecute the petitioners. Therefore, there is absolutely no ground to quash the entire proceedings as submitted by the petitioners. She also relied upon the various judgment of as follows :- i. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India - Appeal (Crl.) 1377 of 1999 dated 23.03.2007 - Madumilan Syntex Ltd & ors Vs. Union of India ii. 1993 (3) WLC 416 - Universal Supply Corporation and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr. iii. 2002(2) MhLj 368 - Income Tax Officer (T.D.S.), Nagpur vs. Sultan Enterprises, Chandrapur and Ors. 3.2. The learned Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax) appearing for the respondent also submitted that there is circular issued by the department vide F.No.285/90/2013-IT (Inv.) dated 07.02.2013, wherein the monetary limit specified for cases to be considered for the prosecution as under :- "(i) Cases, where amount of tax deducted is Rs. 1,00,000 or more and the same is not deposited by the due date prescribed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the Income Tax Rules, 1962, shall mandatorily be processed for prosecution in addition to the the recovery. (ii) Cases, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion of income or withholding of information of evasion of tax. 7. In this regard, the Special Public Prosecutor (Income Tax) appearing for the respondent relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Appeal (Crl.) 1377 of 1999 dated 23.03.2007 in the case of Madumilan Syntex Ltd & ors Vs. Union of India & Anr, as follows :- "We are unable to agree with the above view of the High Court. Once a statute requires to pay tax and stipulates period within which such payment is to be made, the payment must be made within that period. If the payment is not made within that period, there is default and an appropriate action can be taken under the Act. Interpretation canvassed by the learned counsel would make the provision relating to prosecution nugatory. The learned counsel is right in stating that one of the appellants is a female-member. The counsel is also right in contending that in some of the cases referred to by him, this Court held that normally a lady member may not be aware of day to day business of the Firm or the Company. Without laying down general rule, it would be sufficient if we observe that in the case on hand, she was also treated as '....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the default in payment is technical or committed in good faith. The question of compounding the offence may also be considered by the concerned authority prior to the initiation of criminal proceedings if such notice is given by the assessee desirous to compound the offence." 9. She also relied upon the judgement reported in 2002(2) MhLj 368 in the case of Income Tax Officer (T.D.S.), Nagpur vs. Sultan Enterprises, Chandrapur and Ors., as follows :- "3. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. The offence in question related to non-deposit of T.D.S. amount within the prescribed time and, therefore, action was taken against them and dues were recovered by imposing penalty and interest. This also amounts to offence punishable under Section 276B and 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1960. The learned C.J.M. erred in applying the principle of double jeopardy as provided under Section 300 of Criminal Procedure Code for the simple reason that the recovery of the amount due and payable by the respondent-Firm to the Income Tax Department has nothing to do with the criminal prosecution, because it is distinct provision inviting penal action for the default committed by the Firm. They ....