SEQUOIA CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. P P SURI ITO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three criminal petitions havebeen moved against similar orders. dated 28/02/1984 ofAdditional Chief Metroropolitan .Magistrate whereby the application of the petitioners in each of the three cases pendingagainst them for quashing of prosecution proceedings wasrejected.

(2.) Briefly staled the allegations against the petitioners asper complaints filed against them by Mr. P. P. Suri, Income-tax. Officer, Control Circle XX, New Delhi are that the petitioner No. 1 which is a private limited company paid interestto 8 parties who had effected deposits with the company orwere its creditors While doing so. income-tax deductions weremade by the petitioner No. 1 from the amount of interest paidto them. In other words, income-tax was. deducted at source bythis petitioner on interest payments effected. Under the law thedeductions so made should have been deposited with the CentralGovernment within one week of the payments. However, thiswas not done and the deposits were effected much later Theposition in this regard has been as under : <FRM>JUDGEMENT_569_ILR(DEL)1_1985Html1.htm</FRM>A Since there were aef!iu!ts in the case of ,-, credit-ors, one Com-plaini case was Ck\l with regard to 3 crc,l'iors. second withregard to the other 3 and the third quo the remaining 2 creditors.The complaints have been under Section 276 B ol' the InconieTax Act. 1961, which reads as under :If a person, without reas'.)riab!.,' cause or excuse, tailsto deduct or after dedLieting. tails to pay the l:i\as required by or under the provisions of si.sh-eclion 1.9) of beetion 80E or Chapter XV!!-U. nJshall be punishable :

(3.) The Income Tax Officer had well commenced penaltyproceedings under Section 201 (1) and 22] of the Income TaxAct for the failure of the petitioner No. 1 to deposit the saiddeductons of tax at soruce within the timeprescribed. ThatSection 201(1) rearts as under :