Income Tax Officer Ward (6) vs Adinath Sales Corporation and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—The Petitioner has moved this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing the order of the revisional Court dated 4th April, 1990 (Annexure P2) affirming the order of the trial Magistrate dated 5th August, 1987 (Annexure P1), whereby the complaint u/s 276-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was dismissed.

On August 19, 1981 the Respondents deducted tax amounting to Rs. 1,849 from Kumari Madhu, Smt. Romesh Kumari and Smt. Nirmala Rani u/s 194(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Act'') but failed to deposit this amount to the credit of Central Government, within the prescribed period, and this amount was actually deposited by them on 19th August, 1981 without simple interest at the rate of 12 per cent per month. The Respondents moved the Chief Judicial Magistrate u/s 245(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for their discharge, which prayer was accepted,-vide order dated 5th August, 1987. The said order was Impugned by the Petitioner in revision petition, and the same was upheld by the Additional Sessions Judge,-vide April 4, 1990. Second revision petition is barred u/s 397(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The circumvent the provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 397 of the said Code, present petition has been moved u/s 482 thereof.

On the facts of the case, I am not satisfied that the Petitioner can be allowed t6 seek indulgence of this Court, more particularly that he can be allowed to avail the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court u/s 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ''the Code''). In fact, the conduct of the Petitioner deserves to be depricated. There is no dispute that the tax was deducted and deposited, but the grouse of the Petitioner is that it was not deposited in time and was deposited within three months of the due date. A very paltry sum was in dispute. Even if there was a negligence, there was hardly any necessity to move this Court u/s 482 of the Code, more particularly, when the Courts below found that Section 276-B of the Act applies where an Assessee has failed to deduct tax, or after deducting the tax fails to deposit the same with out a reasonable cause or excuse. Penalty could be imposed for non-deposit of the tax within the prescribed period. In the instant case no steps were taken to impose the penalty. Prosecution u/s 276-B could be launched only after the imposition of the penalty. On the construction of this Section, the Courts below held that the prosecution u/s 276-B was wholly uncalled for. On merits, I find absolutely no ground to arrive at a different conclusion than the one reached by the Courts below.

For the reasons recorded above, the petition fails and is dismissed.

However, before parting with the judgment, I am constrained to observe that the Income Tax Authorities should act in a commendable manner, and not otherwise.