![]() ![]() Moreover, Interest is just compensatory in nature. The utilization of Government money attracts prosecution and not even the penalty. (a) The assessee has a wrong impression that it has compensated the Government by paying interest on delayed deposit of TDS and hence not prosecutable. It is further observed that the explanation offered by the accused are neither tenable nor satisfactory as it is clear from the following facts: I am convinced that offence u/s 276B and u/s 278B of the Act have been committed. The reply filed by the deductor company and its director is carefully considered. Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) in the sanction order had observed :. It was alleged that undisputed income tax refunds constituting 4-5 times the amount of shortfall in TDS had also remained pending.ĥ. Financial position of the petitioner company was adversely affected by sudden drop in business orders. Several adjournments were taken where after reply dated 3 rd March, 2017 was filed accepting that there were defaults in the deposit of TDS on account of financial crunch due to sluggish business activity. ![]() However, when no compounding application was filed, another show cause notice dated 25 th January, 2017 was issued to resume the proceedings. Accordingly, the prosecution proceedings were kept in abeyance subject to the petitioners filing compounding petition. In response to the notices, authorized representative of the petitioners had appeared and submitted that the petitioner company and his principal officer would opt for compounding. 6 th April, 2016) issued to the petitioners, as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 276B and Section 278B of the Act. Sanction order also refers to the show cause notice dated 5 th April, 2016 (sic. Sanction order refers to due date for filing of e-statements in respect of salary or non-salary TDS deductions and the date of actual filing of the statement. These defaults were in respect of salary as well as non-salary TDS deductions.Ĥ. 3,52,99,059/- was deducted by the petitioner company as tax at source (TDS), but was not deposited in the government treasury within the prescribed statutory time. Sanction records that during the financial year 2012-13 relevant to the Assessment Year 2013-14, amount of Rs. Impugned order dated 14 thMarch, 2017 passed by the first respondent namely the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS) Delhi-1 is the sanction for prosecution issued under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act, for short).ģ. (d) pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper.”Ģ. 5,09,41,361/- (Rupees five crore, nine lac, forty one thousand, three hundred and sixty one only) and (c) Direct the Respondents to release refunds due to the Petitioner No.1, amounting to approximately Rs. 1 and the officers of the Respondents from carrying out any act in pursuance of the impugned order dated directing launching of criminal prosecution against the Petitioners and, “(a) Issue a writ of certiorari setting aside/quashing the impugned order dated passed by the Respondent No. M/s Indo Arya Central Transport Limited have filed the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |