INCOME TAX OFFICER Vs. SREEVATSA TRADING CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ALL the appeals can be disposed of by a common judgment. In each appeal the Income-tax Department is challenging the judgment of acquittal rendered by the learned trial magistrate in each calendar case acquitting the respondents in each appeal. The appellant in each appeal and the respondents in each appeal are one and the same.

(2.) THE offence complained of is under Section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, i.e., the failure to pay the tax deducted at source for the assessment years 1982-83 and 1983-84. A-1 is the partnership firm and A-2 is arrayed as an accused in his capacity as the partner of the said firm. THEre is no dispute from either side that for the assessment years referred to above. A-1 firm deducted tax at source, but however, they have not paid it in time. It is also not in dispute that the tax deducted at source, namely, Rs. 17,799, Rs. 10,800, Rs. 9,450 and Rs. 33,860, respectively, in each of the four appeals have been deposited with the Revenue with a delay of 40 months, 28 months, 40 months and 33 months, respectively. THE learned trial judge acquitted the accused basing his conclusion, on a reading of Section 276B of the Income-tax Act as in the statute book on the date of the judgment, namely, September 29, 1993. It is needless to state that the guilt of the accused has to be necessarily decided in accordance with law as it stood during the relevant time, namely, during 1982-83 and 1983-84. THE law in the statute book during the offence period was, a failure to deduct or after deducting tax at source, failure to pay would be an offence. THE law as it stood on the date of the judgment is only the failure to pay the tax deducted is made an offence and not the failure to deduct the tax is made an offence. This position in law, which was in the statute book as on the date of the judgment cannot be taken into account at all while deciding the guilt or otherwise of the accused in each case. THE said section also underwent a change with effect from September 10, 1986, by the Amending Act of 1986. As a result of the Amending Act of 1986, the explanation available to the accused that he had a reasonable cause or excuse for not complying with the said section had also been taken out. But, however, it is clear that prior to the Amending Act of 1986, the accused firm had an opportunity to explain that the non-compliance of the requirement of Section 276B of the Income-tax Act was due to a reasonable cause or excuse.