2023 (4) TMI 42

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....0 - -<br>Income Tax<br>Honourable Dr.Justice Anita Sumanth For the Petitioner : Mr.George Cheriyan (in both writ petitions) For the Respondents : Dr.B.Ramaswamy Senior Standing Counsel (in both writ petitions) COMMON ORDER The petitioner is a Company and challenges an order passed by the first respondent sanctioning prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-Tax Act, 1....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....d been outstanding in some cases and in such an instance, the question of tax deduction does not arise. This position has been tentatively enunciated by the petitioner in its only reply filed before the second respondent on 23.03.2015 that reads thus:- "Sub: Prosecution proceedings u/s276B. Ref: C.No:24/CIT(TDS)/PROSN/2014-15- Ref.20/155 I was unable to represent myself with you as requested o....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... impugned order, the officer refers to the explanation given for delay in remittance of TDS, he has not referred to the specific submission that there was no deduction in several cases as the payments itself were not made. The officer concludes in the impugned order that there has been no explanation put forth from the assessee, which statement is not correct in view of the explanation advanced on....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rovision. A clear distinction recognized and made between the factum of &#39;deduction&#39; and that of &#39;remittance&#39;. The assessee had been given multiple and more than sufficient opportunities to explain its case before the authorities which were not assailed. It is only now, before this Court, that the petitioner pursues the explanation tendered in reply dated 23.03.2015. 8. Learned Sta....