JATTU RAM SURENDRA KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is given by the petitioner to proposal to launch prosecution under Section 276B of IT Act, 1961, for failure on part of petitioner to deduct tax at source in terms of Section 194A of the Act of 1961. Notices impugned are placed on record as Annexs. 13, 14 and 15, all dt. 27th March, 1991. An amendment was introduced to Section 276B of the Act of 1961 which came into force on 1st April, 1989. Section 276B as it was prior to 1st April, 1989, reads as under:

(2.) IT is stated by the counsel for the petitioner that omission of the words 'failure to deduct' shows that legislature wants to ignore trivial offences like failure to deduct tax at source and, therefore, the petitioner is not liable for prosecution as launched by the impugned notices. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is fortified by Division Bench's judgment of this Court in the case of Anantraj Joshi and Co and Ors. v. CIT and Ors. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Anantiaj Joshi and Co. and Ors. (supra) while relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court held as under: '4. Section 271 deals with consequential failure to furnish returns, comply with notices and concealment of income, etc. Sub -clause (1)(a) as it stood prior to 1989 is extracted as follows :