|COURT:||Chief Metropoliton Magistrate|
|CORAM:||R. S. Sarkale ACCM|
|CATCH WORDS:||prosecution, TDS default|
|DATE:||April 25, 2019 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||June 1, 2019 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to view full post with file download link|
|S. 276B Prosecution for delay in payment of TDS: The default is complete if the TDS is not deposited in time. Late deposit does not absolve the accused. The accused has no right to retain the TDS amount and use it for any other purpose. Pleas of financial problem, incompetent staff, accountant's negligence, unawareness about law etc are not acceptable as a defense (Madhumilan Syntex AIR 2007 SC (148) followed)|
Considering all the discussion and record, it clear that the accused deducted TDS amount for the relevant financial year 20092010 but failed to deposit the TDS amount with Government account within stipulated time. The accused is responsible person to pay the amount within time. The factum of non deposit of tax amount within time has been proved and admitted by the accused during statement recorded u/s. 313 of Cr.P.C. Thus, no further evidence is required to prove the case of the complainant. Admission is the best evidence to prove the allegations. Thus, in view of aforesaid case laws and admission by the accused, the case of complainant stands proved. All the facts clearly indicates that accused deducted the TDS for the relevant period and did not deposit the same with Government account within stipulated period and withheld the same for her own use. Accused can not be allowed to use the tax amount, so deducted for any other purpose. The TDS deducted on behalf of the Government and should be deposited in Government account. Deductor is not supposed to finance their business through Government money. Therefore, considering the evidence available on record, I come to conclusion that the accused is the person to pay tax within time and accused failed to deposit TDS within time. Therefore, the complainant has proved the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and proved the guilt of the accused u/s. 276B of I.T. Act.