| Case ID |
15bfc46f-5c95-4b93-94df-29a224087d05 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
C.A. NO. 2133 OF 2003 AND APOT NO. 374 OF 2003 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 11, 2003 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence to justify the non-deposit of tax deducted at source during the criminal trial. The provisions of section 278AA of the Income-tax Act would only be available to the appellant if it could prove that there were sufficient and good reasons for the default. The court upheld the decision of the Single Judge, stating that the appellant's plea of financial hardship was not enough to warrant the relief sought. The court emphasized that the decision to initiate prosecution was valid and did not warrant interference. |
| Summary |
In the case of Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, the Calcutta High Court addressed the legal implications of section 278AA of the Income-tax Act, 1961, concerning the prosecution of tax defaults. The appellant, Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd., faced prosecution for failing to deposit tax deducted at source for the financial years 1995-96 and 1997-98 to 1999-2000. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant, which sought to pre-empt the criminal proceedings initiated against it. The court ruled that unless proven otherwise, the allegations against the appellant constituted an offence under section 276B. Although the appellant claimed financial hardship as a reason for its default, the court held that this alone did not suffice to exempt it from prosecution. The court reiterated that it is the responsibility of the appellant to present adequate evidence during the trial to invoke the provisions of section 278AA. This case highlights the importance of compliance with tax obligations and the legal remedies available for those facing prosecution under the Income-tax Act. The court's ruling underscores the requirement for substantial evidence when seeking relief from criminal liability in tax matters. |
| Court |
Calcutta High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
Altamas Kabir,
Alok Kumar Basu
|
| Lawyers |
Sudipto Sarkar,
J.P. Khaitan,
Ratnanko Banerjeee,
Sandeep Chawdhury,
S.K. Kapur,
R.K. Chowdhury,
Ms. Soma Chatterjee (Mishra)
|
| Petitioners |
Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd.
|
| Respondents |
Commissioner of Income Tax
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 3314 = (2003) 264 ITR 243
|
| Other Citations |
Shaw Wallace & Co. Ltd. v. CIT (TDS) (No. 1) [2003] (2004) 264 ITR 241 (Cal.),
CIT v. Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. [1983] 144 ITR 225/15 Taxman 1 (SC),
S.G. Kale v. Union of India [2002] 256 ITR 148/[2001] 118 Taxman 349 (Raj.),
Basdeo Agarwalla v. Emperor AIR 1945 FC 16,
Mansukhlal Vishaldas Chauhan v. State of Gujarat [1997] 7 SCC 622,
Jaswant Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1958 SC 124,
Superintendent of Police (CBI) v. Deepak Chowdhary [1995] 6 SCC 225,
Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal [1999] 238 ITR 461 (SC),
Jagmohan Singh v. ITO [1992] 196 ITR 473 (Punj. & Har.)
|
| Laws Involved |
Income-tax Act, 1961
|
| Sections |
278AA,
276B,
200
|