Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. In all these petitions, common questions of law are involved and, hence, they are disposed of by a common order. In all the petitions, the petitioners are the same and they have prayed for quashing the criminal proceedings initiated against them under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act").

2. Non-petitioner No. 2, viz., Deputy Commissioner, Assessment-I, Income-tax, Jaipur, filed eight separate complaints against the petitioners on December 21, 1988, for the offence under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Act which pertains to the assessment year 1987-88. The accusation against the petitioners is that they had deducted income-tax at source on the interest amount paid by them under Section 194A of the Act, but did not pay/deposit the same to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time as required under Section 200 of the Act read with rule 30(1)(b)(i) of the Income-tax Rules, 1962. As per the said rules, the tax so deducted should be deposited within two months from the date of the deduction. The details of the cases and the amount of tax deducted at source and the delay in depositing the amount to the account of the Central Government are given in the following chart :

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Department argued that it was not necessary to issue any show-cause notice to the petitioners before filing a complaint as there is no such statutory requirement either under the Act or the Rules. According to learned counsel, the offence under Section 276B of the Act was committed by the petitioners as the provisions of Sections 194A and 200 of the Act, read with rule 30(1)(b)(i), (ii) created an absolute liability on the part of the petitioners to have deposited the tax amount within the stipulated period. It was then contended that, in the instant case, the petitioners were given notice by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on November 17, 1987, and the assessing authority was' not satisfied with the explanation given by the petitioners and ordered interest to be charged under Section 201(1A) of the Act on the tax amount. Mr. Amar Singh further argued that imposition of pepalty by the Assessing Officer under Section 221 of the Act is not a condition precedent for launching prosecution under Section 276B read with Section 278B, inasmuch as the prosecution of the petitioners is an independent recourse provided under the Act. It was then argued that cognizance was rightly taken by the Magistrate and there are no exceptional circumstances to quash the proceedings by invoking the inherent powers under Section 482, Criminal Procedure Code. Both learned counsel have referred to a number of decisions which I shall refer to later on.

10. Then, Chapter XXII provides for offences and prosecutions for the various contraventions committed by the assessee. Section 276B provides for punishment in the case of failure to pay the tax deducted at source. Then Section 278AA provides as under :

"278AA. Notwithstanding anything contained in the provisions of Section 276A, Section 276AB or Section 276B, no person shall be punishable for any failure referred to in the said provisions if he proves that there was reasonable cause for such failure."
My answer is emphatically in the negative. Section 278AA is nothing else but a proviso to Section 276B of the Act, but a separate section has been inserted in the Act, as similar provisions have been made with respect to prosecution under Sections 276A, 276AB, 276DD and 276E. The cumulative effect of the amendment, in my view, is that in a case of prosecution under Section 276B of the Act, two things have to be shown ; firstly, that there was failure on the part of the assessee in deducting or paying the tax within time and secondly, that the failure was without any reasonable cause.