Prosecution for late deposit of TDS stayed in view of Supreme Court judgment

Prosecution for late deposit of TDS stayed by High Court in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

In a recent order, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh has stayed the prosecution for late/delayed  deposit of TDS in view of judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court 

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 4016 (2024) (05) HC

In the instant case, Petition under Section 482 of CrPC was filed praying quashing of proceedings at Trial Court and order of cognisance of offence.

The Petitioner were a Private Limited Company and its Managing Director. The accusation against the Petitioner was that they failed to remit/deposit the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in to Government account within the time prescribed for FY 2016-17.

A chargesheet was filed against the Petitioners prosecuting them for the offence punishable under section 276C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).

Before the Hon’ble High Court, the Petitioner relied upon a recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein their lordships laid down the principle that there shall not be any penalty leviable under section 271C on merely delay in remittance of TDS after deducting the same by the deductor/assessee. It was also held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the consequences of non payment/belated deposit of TDS would be under section 201(1A) and section 276B of the Act.

In view of the above submission, the Hon’ble High Court opined that the matter required examination and accordingly stayed all the proceedings on the file of the Trial Court. 

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

• FDCM invites application for empanelment of practising CAs/ Chartered Accountant Firms
• PGRI invites application for CAs for empanelment for Circulation Verification work
• CBDT notifies revised Form for registration as valuer & authorised income tax practitioner
• Curtailing time to file reply to notice u/s 148A(b) from 30 days prejudiced assessee’s right – HC
• For registration u/s 12AB, applicability of proviso to section 2(15) can’t be adjudicated