AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.S. Mishra, J.
In the present petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Court), Cuttack in 2(c) CC Case No.13 of 2023 whereby the cognizance for the offences under Sections-276B and 276BB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been taken against the petitioner.
The complaint case was filed by the Revenue, inter alia, alleging that the petitioner has deducted TDS of Rs.59,02,093/- and collected TCS of Rs.57,27,898/- for the financial year 2019, but the same was not deposited with the revenue within the stipulated time frame. There was delay in depositing the said amount ranging from 1 day to 173 days. On the basis of the aforementioned allegation, the complaint was filed against the petitioner by the Revenue.
The petitioner in the defence submitted that the delay in depositing the TDS and TCS amount was caused due to the prevailing COVID-19 restriction then. However, subsequently the amount has been deposited with interest. The following chart would indicate the extent of delay caused in depositing the amounts as alleged:
TDS & TCS WORKING
Sl.No.
Quarter
Months
Due Date
Date of Payment
Delay Day
1
1st Qtr.
Apr-19
07.05.2019
07.06.2019
30 days
May-19
07.06.2019
07.06.2019
0 days
June-19
07.07.2019
12.07.2019
5 days
1st Qtr. Return
April-2019 to Jun-
2019
31.07.2019
26.07.2019
0 days
2
2nd Qtr.
Jul-19
07.08.2019
07.08.2019
0 days
Aug-19
07.09.2019
07.09.2019
0 days
Sep-19
07.10.2019
14.10.2019
7 days
2nd Qtr.
Return
July 2019 to Sep-
2019
31.10.2019
01.11.2019
1 day
delay
3
3rd Qtr.
Oct-19
07.11.2019
07.11.2019
0 days
Nov-19
07.12.2019
07.12.2019
0 days
Dec-19
07.01.2020
07.01.2020
0 days
III Rd Qtr Return
Oct-2019 to Dec-
2019
31.01.2020
30.01.2020
0 days
4
4th Qtr.
Jan-20
07.02.2020
07.02.2020
0 days
Feb-20
07.03.2020
07.03.2020
0 days
Mar-20
07.04.2020
20.07.2020
111 days
4th Qtr. Return
Jan-2020 to
March-2020
31.07.2020
31.07.2020
0 days
Despite the aforementioned explanation, the revenue went ahead and filed the complaint. Learned trial Court, without appreciating the peculiarity of the present case, has taken cognizance of the offence vide the impugned order. Hence, the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Court at this stage and prays for quashing of the entire proceeding.
Mr. Rudra Prasad Kar, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. A. Khandelwal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court dated 15.04.2024 passed in the case of Sree Metaliks Limited and others vs. Union of India and another in CRLMC No.1921 of 2023. Mr. Kar, learned Senior Counsel submits that the case of the present petitioner is squarely covered by the aforementioned judgment of this Court. He relies upon paragraph-10 of the above judgment, which reads as under:
“10. Taking into consideration the rival contentions of learned counsels for the parties and the judgments relied upon by the petitioners, I am of the considered view that the maximum delay of 394 days for depositing the TDS amount to the revenue account have been well explained by the petitioners, therefore, the authorities ought to have taken into consideration same, particularly for the reasons that the petitioners-company has suffered the I.B. proceeding and the restriction imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic, I am of the view that the petitioners case is directly covered by the judgments cited in the case of Dev Multicom Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and M/s. D.N. Homes Pvt. Ltd. Khurda & another (supra), because the prosecution indeed has been initiated by the opposite parties against the petitioners after having received the TDs amount along with the interest. Therefore, the entire proceeding arising out of 2(c) CC Case No.09 of 2023 pending in the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Spl.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack and the consequential proceedings arising therefrom qua the petitioners stands quashed.”
The case of the petitioner is also covered by the Circular No F No 285/90/2008-IT(Inv-I)/05 dated 24.04.2008, which has been in extenso reproduced in the judgment of Sree Metaliks Limited (supra).
Mr. Subash Chandra Mohanty, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Income Tax Department does not dispute the fact that the case of the petitioner is covered by the judgment of this Court in Sree Metaliks Limited (supra).
Taking into consideration the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties at the Bar and relying upon the judgment of this Court in Sree Metaliks Limited (supra), I am of the considered view that the present petition deserves merit. Accordingly, the same is allowed.
The order dated 22.02.2023 passed by the learned Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate (Special Court), Cuttack in 2(c) CC Case No.13 of 2023 and the consequential proceedings arising there from are quashed qua the petitioner.
There shall be no order as to cost.
.……..………………….