Prosecution for late deposit of TDS after 11 months. Once there was a non-deposit, necessary consequences shall follow including prosecution- Supreme Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation
ABCAUS 3564 (2021) (12) SC
In the instant case, the assessee had wiled a Writ Petition to challenge the sanction letter for prosecution for late deposit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) under the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act)
A huge amount in crores though deducted by the petitioner Company as TDS was not deposited in the Government treasury within the prescribed statutory time. It was deposited after 11 months.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court while dismissing the Petition stated that once there was a non-deposit, the necessary consequences shall follow including the prosecution.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court stated that whatever the submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner-assessee were all defences which were required to be considered by the trial Court during the trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that when the petitioner approached the High Court to set aside the sanction order under Article 226 of the Constitution by that time the Magistrate had already taken the cognizance and issued summons to the petitioner(s). Therefore, the High Court was justified in observing that the Company and the person incharge were required to face the trial.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court declined to interfere in the matter by exercising its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution and dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP).
Download Full Judgment Click Here >>
- Mere carry forward of loss can not be denied for belated return – ITAT
- Sales duly recorded in books & VAT returns, can’t be held bogus without cogent adverse material
- ITAT allows Diwali expenses incurred by assessee as business expenses
- Section 292BB does not bar assessee to raise objection for non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) – SC
- Supreme Court explains expression “reason to believe” & “change of opinion” in Income Tax Act 1961
