Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. UOI & Anr.

Case Laws Analysis
REFERRED D.N. Homes (P) Ltd. v. UOI 2023 TaxPub(DT) 6992 (Ori-HC)
REFERRED Dev Multicom (P) Ltd. v. State of Jharkhand 2022 TaxPub(DT) 2099 (Jhar-HC)

SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT


The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 2001 (Ori-HC) IN THE ORISSA HIGH COURT SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. UOI & Anr. CRLMC No. 1921 of 2023 15 April, 2024 Petitioners by: Sidhartha Ray, Senior Advocate Opp. Parties by: Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax. Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate JUDGMENT *S.S. Mishra, J.* In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the complaint case registered as 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. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 22-2-2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Spl.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(c) CC Case No. 09 of 2023 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under sections-276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short The Act). The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 5-1-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax according sanction under section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act for prosecuting the present petitioners for the offences as mentioned above. 2. The case against the opposite parties put forth in the statutory complaint filed by the opposite party no. 1 is that the petitioners have violated the provisions of sections-276B and 278B of the Act by not depositing the TDS amount for the financial year 2019-20 within the statutory period prescribed under law and delay caused by them remained unexplained. 3. It is contended by the opposite parties that although the TDS amount was deposited belatedly by paying interest for the belated period by the petitioners, still the statutory offence under section-276B read with section-278B of the Act has been admittedly committed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have delayed in depositing the amount collected on behalf of the govt. ranging from 15 days to 394 days. Since the delays are beyond one year, the competent authority has rightly accorded sanction under section-279(1) of the Act for prosecuting the petitioners for having committed the offences under section 276B read with section-278B of the Act. SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

The Tax Publishers2024 TaxPub(DT) 2001 (Ori-HC)

IN THE ORISSA HIGH COURT

SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Sree Metaliks Ltd. v. UOI & Anr.

CRLMC No. 1921 of 2023

15 April, 2024

Petitioners by: Sidhartha Ray, Senior Advocate

Opp. Parties by: Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra Senior Standing Counsel, Income Tax. Mr. A. Kedia, Advocate

JUDGMENT

S.S. Mishra, J.

In the present petition, the petitioners are seeking quashing of the complaint case registered as 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. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order dated 22-2-2023 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Spl.)-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack in 2(c) CC Case No. 09 of 2023 whereby the learned Court below has taken cognizance of the offences under sections-276B/278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (In short The Act). The petitioners have also assailed the order dated 5-1-2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax according sanction under section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act for prosecuting the present petitioners for the offences as mentioned above.

2. The case against the opposite parties put forth in the statutory complaint filed by the opposite party no. 1 is that the petitioners have violated the provisions of sections-276B and 278B of the Act by not depositing the TDS amount for the financial year 2019-20 within the statutory period prescribed under law and delay caused by them remained unexplained.

3. It is contended by the opposite parties that although the TDS amount was deposited belatedly by paying interest for the belated period by the petitioners, still the statutory offence under section-276B read with section-278B of the Act has been admittedly committed by the petitioners. Admittedly, the petitioners have delayed in depositing the amount collected on behalf of the govt. ranging from 15 days to 394 days. Since the delays are beyond one year, the competent authority has rightly accorded sanction under section-279(1) of the Act for prosecuting the petitioners for having committed the offences under section 276B read with section-278B of the Act.