SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1459

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ANITA SUMANTH, J.
M/s Bohemain Destinations Pvt Ltd., Rep. By its Managing Director N. G. George, – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Income Tax Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax Chennai & Another – Respondents
W.P. Nos. 20405 & 20406 of 2020 & W.M.P. Nos. 25183 to 25186 of 2020
Decided On : 10-03-2023

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:George Cheriyan, Advocate. For the Respondents: B. Ramaswamy, Senior Standing Counsel.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of balancing the interests of both parties and considering legal submissions in prosecution proceedings under the Income Tax Act.

Headnote:

Prosecution - Income Tax Act - Section 276B, Section 278B - The court discussed the provisions of Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dealing with failure to pay taxes to the credit of the Central Government under Chapter XIID or XVIIB. The court highlighted the distinction between the factum of 'deduction' and that of 'remittance' and emphasized the importance of balancing the interests of both parties in reaching its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Company, challenged an order sanctioning prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, for failure to deposit tax deducted at source within the prescribed period.

Finding of the Court:

The court set aside the impugned orders and permitted the petitioner to appear before the respondent to be heard on the legal submission. The court emphasized the need to balance the interests of both parties and ordered the respondents to pass orders within a specified period after hearing the petitioner and considering evidences, if any, filed by it.

Issues: The issues revolved around the failure to deposit tax deducted at source within the prescribed period and the legal arguments put forth by the petitioner in response to the prosecution proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the distinction between the factum of 'deduction' and that of 'remittance' under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, and highlighted the importance of considering the legal submissions and balancing the interests of both parties.

Final Decision: The writ petitions were allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the respondents were directed to pass orders within a specified period after hearing the petitioner and considering evidences, if any, filed by it.

JUDGMENT

(Prayerin W.P.No.20405 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records placed before the 1 st respondent by the 2 nd respondent for sanction for prosecution and quash the impugned sanction for prosecution in Proceedings C.No.CIT(TDS)/CHE/Person.24/2017-18 dated 30.01.2018 for the Financial Year 2009-10 issued by the 1 st respondent and direct the 1st respondent to consider the representations dated 12.02.2012, 14.12.2012 and 23.05.2015 of the petitioner.

in W.P.No.20406 of 2020: Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus calling for records placed before the 1 st respondent by the 2 nd respondent for sanction for prosecution and quash the impugned sanction for prosecution in Proceedings C.No.CIT(TDS)/CHE/Person.24/2017-18 dated 30.01.2018 for the Financial Year 2010-11 issued by the 1 st respondent and direct the 1 st respondent to consider the representations dated 12.02.2012, 14.12.2012 and 23.05.2015 of the petitioner.)

Common Order:

1. 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, 1961(in short, ''the Act'') dated 30.01.2018.

2. The proceedings relate to the period April, 2009 to February, 2010 and the prosecution proposed is for the reason that, according to the respondent, rental and other payments made by the petitioner were subject to tax deduction but the tax deducted had not been deposited into the treasury as statutorily required.

3. At paragraphs 7 and 12 of the counter filed by the respondents, they refer to their system database that, according to them, establishes the position that the tax was deducted but failed to be deposited within the prescribed period.

4. Per contra, the argument of the petitioner is that while admittedly there was some delay in remitting of taxes deducted in a significant number of instances, the rental and other amounts had 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 on 6/3/2015.

However we wish to make the following submissions.

1. For Fy2009/10, we had remitted the TDS up to date with interest and penalty payable and filed the returns of our own accord prior to receiving any intimation from the department.

2. We as a company have been incurring huge losses and the delay was neither wilful nor wanton.

3. Several of the delayed TDS remittances are for payments only being accounted but not actually paid, due to the accrual method of accounting.

4. We wish to once again submit that all these TDS amounts have been remitted with interest and penalty for the delay.

We request you to kindly acknowledge our genuine request and not initiate any action against us.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, for Bohemain Destinations Pvt Ltd.,”

5. While in the 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 23.03.2015.

6. The legal submission made finds support from the provisions of Section 276B of the Act dealing with ''failure to pay taxes to the credit of Central Government under Chapter XIID or XVIIB'' and

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top