Case Details

Citation(s)
1972 SLG 10 1972 SLD 10 (1972) 84 ITR 806
Kerala High Court
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 83 OF 1971, NOVEMBER 17, 1971
K. SADASIVAN, J.
State Prosecutor for the Appellant. S. Easwara Iyer for the
Respondent.

State

v.

Halley Mathew

Law:

Section:

Section 276B read with section 276 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [Corresponding to section 51 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922] - Offences and Prosecutions - Failure to pay tax on distributed profits of domestic companies deducted at source - Assessment year 1961-62 - Respondent accused, who was principal officer, deducted income tax at source from dividends declared by company on 20-4-1961 but same could not credited to Central Government as required by Act and Rules - Whether offence committed by accused could not survive after cancellation of 1922 Act which created that offence and, thus, offence was not punishable under section 276(d) or 276B - Held, yes FACTS The respondent accused was the principal officer of a company and in the capacity he was stated to have deducted on 20-4-1961 certain amount as income tax from the dividends declared by the company for the year 30-6-1960 but the same was not credited to the Central Government as required by the Act and rules. He was charged under sections 276(d) and 276B for the aforesaid default. On appeal the Single Judge acquitted the respondent accused on the ground that in the instant case the offence was committed under the 1922 Act and that offence did not survive after the 1922 Act was superseded by the present Act of 1961 under which the charge was brought. On appeal by the revenue. HELD In the instant case the act committed was failure to remit to the credit of the Central Government the tax collected from dividends due to particular parties. In other words, the money that came into the hands of the accused was the money due to the Central Government and he was holding it on behalf of the Central Government. The rule provides for the remittance of tax in the treasury within seven days of its collection; the result was that the offence would be complete by the non-deposit within the prescribed time. In the case of an omission to pay tax or failure to do something as provided by a particular statute the failure or omission will continue even after the time allowed for it. But, here, on the expiry of the specified time, the offence itself was complete and no duty was enjoined on the accused by the statute to…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492