M/S Garg Construction Company v. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT CHANDIGARH Criminal Revision No.75 of 1993Date of decision: February 05, 2008 Income Tax Officer, Jind M/s Garg Construction Company Versus … Petitioner … Respondent CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIAPresent: None. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (Oral) Additional Sessions Judge, Jind on 15[th] July, 1991, acceptedrevision petition of the respondents and held as under: “I have heard the learned counsel for the parties andhave gone through the evidence on record and after hearingthe same, I am of the view that the order dated 13.12.1990cannot sustain. The case of the complainant is that therevision petitioners were under legal obligation to deduct 2%amount as income tax on the payments made to the sub-contractors named Pawan Kumar and Om Parkash but nosuch deductions were made and the payment was notdeposited and, as such, provisions of Section 194(c)(2)punishable under Section 278(B) of the Income Tax Act hadbeen violated. In the evidence the complainant had filedassessment order of the Firm relating to that financial year and the same has been exhibited as P.17. A perusal of thisassessment order not only proves that TDS (1% deductioncalled TDS) of Rs.12383/- had been deducted and depositedbut it also proves that payment to sub-contractors had beenheld as bogus and the income of Om Parkash and PawanKumar sub-contractors had been counted as income of thePartnership Firm M/s Garg Construction Company, if videassessment order Ex.P-17, it has been held by Shri M.L.Sabharwal himself that Shri Om Parkash and Shri PawanKumar were not the sub-contractors then the question ofdeduction of TDS at 1% and depositing the same could nothave arisen and it could not be said that there was anyviolation of the provisions of the Income Tax Act. Evenotherwise the case of the complainant is that no TDS hadbeen deducted and deposited whereas the assessmentorder shows that TDS had been deposited and as such, thataverment in the complaint is falsified. Under Section 194(C)(2), before launching the prosecution it has to be proved thatthe TDS has not been deducted and deposited without anyreasonable cause of excuse and it is so mentioned in parasNo.9 and 10 of the complaint and there is not even anallegation in the evidence that TDS had not been depositedin time without any reasonable cause or excuse.” The Income Tax Officer, Jind has preferred present revisionpetition challenging discharge of the respondents. None has causedappearance for petitioner. In the grounds of revision, it is stated that sincewithin the specified period, tax deducted was not deposited, therefore,violation of Section 194-C of the Income Tax Act is punishable under Section 276(b). This matter pertains to the assessment year 1986-87 as isevident from ground No.1 of the revision. Period of 22 years has broughtdisinterest in both petitioner and respondent as none has causedappearance. I have perused the order of Additional Sessions Judge, Jind.There is no infirmity in the same, which calls for interference by theRevisional Court. Hence, present revision petition is dismissed. February 05, 2008.rps [Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia]Judge