Prosecution u/s 276C of Official Liquidator of company. High Court dismissed the application of Income Tax Department
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 3311 (2020) (05) HC
In the instant case, the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) had made an application to the Hon’ble High Court for launching prosecution under Section 276C(2) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), in case of a company under Liquidation.
In the said application, it was alleged by the Income Tax Department that for two consecutive assessment years, the company had deposited income tax after the delay of four years and one year respectively from the date the return of income (ITR) of the company was due.
It was asserted that the Official Liquidator could not claim immunity from the prosecution under Section 635A of the Companies Act, for the reason that omission and commission of the Official Liquidator is not in good faith and non-compliance of provisions of Income Tax Act is a willful and deliberate failure to deposit sovereign dues within time.
Thus, prayer was made for granting permission for launching prosecution against the Company/ Official Liquidator.
On the other hand, the Official Liquidator stated that full Income Tax amount could not be deposited at the time of filing of Return as the Bank had not given the credit for TDS on the interest income as on the date of filing the Return and after filing of return, the Official Liquidator never got the demand letter from Income Tax Department, as mandated under Section 143 of the Act nor the liability was visible in the demand section of the Company’s login on e-filing Web Site of the Department.
It was pointed out that the tax had been deposited immediately after receiving notice of the prosecution.
It was further stated that the Office of Official Liquidator is a Government Office and it is neither engaged in running any business nor is the Director or shareholder of the Company in liquidation and the transactions of the Companies under liquidation are under the supervision of the High Court. Therefore, Office of Liquidator cannot be said to have evaded the tax willfully.
It was further stated that it was not a case of evasion of tax but simply a case of late deposit of tax, whereupon appropriate interest has also been levied and paid and the Official Liquidator had deposited the balance Tax along with interest when tax liability was shown in the electronic system of the Income Tax Department and the Tax liability was already disclosed by the Official Liquidator himself in the Income Tax Returns filed.
The Hon’ble High Court opined that the explanation rendered by the Official Liquidator was satisfactory and it was not a fit case for granting approval for launching prosecution. Accordingly, the applications are dismissed
Temporarily blocking public access to Telegram App under section 69A of IT Act 2000 is not disproportionate - Delhi HC…
High Court explains the meaning of term ‘enterprise’ appearing in section 80IA to means a project or an undertaking owned…
Addition deleted as assessee was only a carrier of cash and the real owner had come forward owning the cash…
Lokayukta Police not an ‘intelligence and security’ organisation and hence not exempt from disclosure of information under RTI Act 2005…
Payment of imprest whether a transfer within the meaning of section 269ST – case remanded for determination In a recent…
CA Misconduct – Appellate order quashed as final judgment was not passed by same members who heard arguments. In a…