Skip to main content

Tax Deductors Who Default In Depositing TDS by Due Date Shall be Liable for Prosecution: CBDT

It has come to the notice of Income Tax Department that many times the tax deductors, after deducting TDS from specified payments, are deliberately not depositing the taxes so deducted in Government account and continue to deploy the funds so retained for business purposes or for personal use. Such retention of Government dues beyond the due date is an offence liable for prosecution under Section 276B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The defaulter, if convicted, can be sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a term which can extend upto seven years.

The TDS units of Income Tax Department have been taking up prosecution proceedings in suitable cases where TDS has been retained beyond the due date. The Central Board of Direct Taxes has partly modified existing guidelines for identification of cases for launching prosecution. As per the revised guidelines, the criterion of minimum retention period of 12 months has been dispensed with. For the benefit of public at large, it is now clarified that defaulters, who have retained the TDS deducted and failed to deposit the same in Government account within due date, shall be liable for prosecution, irrespective of the period of retention.

However, the offence u/s 276B of the Income Tax Act can be compounded by Chief Commissioner having jurisdiction on the case, either before or after the launching of prosecution proceedings. In the recent past, several defaulters have submitted petitions for compounding of such offences and compounding orders have also been passed by the Competent Authority in suitable cases.

Article referred: http://pib.nic.in/newsite/erelease.aspx?relid=97697

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more