Madras High Court
M/S. Indian Institute Of vs P.K.Pradeep Kumar on 6 December, 2021
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 06.12.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE N.SATHISH KUMAR
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
1.M/s. INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
LOGISTICS PVT LTD.,
(TAN : CHEI05939D)
No.6, II Floor, South Indian Chamber of Commerce,
Esplanade,
Chennai – 600 108.
2.V.J.Pushpakumar,
M/s.INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
LOGISTICS PVT LTD.,
K-12 III Floor, Swati Towers, Durgabai Deshmukh Road,
R.A.Puram,
Chennai – 600 028.
3.Kalpesh Rameshchandra Patel,
Director
M/s.INDIAN INSTITUTE OF
LOGISTICS PVT LTD.,
No.6, II Floor, South Indian Chamber of Commerce,
Esplanade,
Chennai – 600 108. ... Petitioners in all Crl.O.P
Vs.
Page No.1 of 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
P.K.Pradeep Kumar,
Income Tax Officer,
TDS Ward – 2(2)
Chennai – 600 034. ...Respondent in all Crl.O.P
Common Prayer: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, to call for the records and Quash the
proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.141, 142, 143 and 144 of 2017, pending on
the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I), Egmore,
Chennai.
For Petitioners : M/s.M.Deivanandam
For Respondent : Ms. M.Sheela
Special Public Prosecutor
Income Tax Department
Assisted by Ms.M.Prarthana
COMMON ORDER
These petitions have been filed to call for the records and Quash
the proceedings in E.O.C.C.No.141 to 144 of 2017, pending on the file of
the Additional chief Metropolitan Magistrate (EO-I), Egmore, Chennai.
The prosecution has been initiated against the petitioners for the offence
u/s.276 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
2.The crux of the allegation that has been culled out from these
petitions is that the petitioners after deducting TDS under various
sections of Chapter XVII B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, from payments
made to various parties, the petitioners instead of depositing the amount
into the Government treasury within the due date, they have failed to pay
the tax deducted at source to the credit of the Central Government within
the prescribed time and have committed default u/s.200 and 204 r/w 30
of the Income Tax Rules for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012-13,
2013-14 and 2014-15, which is the subject matter of the above criminal
original petitions and the prosecution proceedings in
E.O.C.C.No.141,142, 143, 144 of 2017 has been initiated against them
and the same is pending on the file of the learned Chief Metropolitan
Magistrate, the Economic Offence-1, Egmore, Chennai for the alleged
offence under 276B r/w 276B of the Income Tax Act 1961 for the FY
2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2014-15.
3.Though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners raised a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
jurisdictional issue in the last occasion and submitted that they are
required committal proceedings, such submission has not been pressed
into service. In view of the judgment of this Court in Crl.O.P.No.22137
of 2019 and Crl.O.P.No.1526 of 2020. The main submission of the
learned counsel for the petitioners governed in the petition is that Section
276B provision does not speak on the delay about the payment of the tax,
whereas 276 C (1) makes it clear that if a person willfully attempts in any
manner whatsoever to evade any tax, penalty or interest chargeable or
(imposable, or under reports his income), under this Act, he shall without
prejudice to any penalty that may be imposable on him under any other
provisions of this act, be punishable.
4.The absent of the word “due time” in 276B makes it clear that
the mere delay in payment of tax is not an offence. Hence, he contended
that in the absence of time fixed for payment of tax deducted from the
source, a complaint cannot be lodged for prosecution. It is the further
submission that the complaint is bereft of details as to the nature of delay
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
and other aspects. Therefore, the entire complaint filed in this regard has
to be quashed.
5.Mrs.M.Sheela, the Special Public Prosecutor, Income Tax
Department appearing for the respondent submitted that the non payment
of tax from the deducted sources itself is an offence and admittedly the
payment has been made with a due delay. Therefore, merely because the
time limit is not fixed as per 276B, it may not be said that the entire
prosecution is not maintainable and to be quashed in the eye of law.
6.Heard both sides. Perused the materials on record.
7.At the outset, it is relevant to note that Section 200 of the Income
Tax Act. Section 200 (1) makes it clear that any person deducting any
sum in accordance with the provisions of the Act, shall pay the same to
the Government treasury within the prescribed time and the amounts so
deducted from the various parties to be credited to the Central
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
Government as per the Board direction. The above provision makes it
clear that the tax deducted from sources to be credited within the
prescribed time as per the direction of the Board. The penal provision
against delay in payment of tax within the time is also prescribed in 276
B. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners in
this regard cannot be countenanced.
8.As far as other submissions that the complaint is bereft of details,
that it has not contained all the material particulars and minor details,
this Court is of the view that the complaint is required basically for
setting the criminal law in motion and it need not contain all the relevant
details. It is for the prosecution to establish the alleged offence before
the trial Court by adducing evidence. Hence, this Court is not inclined to
entertain these petitions and there is no merit in the submissions of the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
9.In the result, these Criminal Original Petitions are dismissed. It is
made clear that these observations are made in the order only to decide
these petitions. The trial Court shall conduct trial in a fair manner and
decide the matter on merits and in accordance with law without being
influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order
and dispose of the matter within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of this order. It is open to the petitioners to take all the
legal plea before the trial Court to contest the case.
06.12.2021
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
kas / dk
1.P.K.Pradeep Kumar,
Income Tax Officer,
TDS Ward – 2(2)
Chennai – 600 034.
2.The Public Prosecutor
High Court of Madras
Chennai
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355 to 20358 of 2017
and CRL.MP.Nos.12200 to 12207 of 2017
N.SATHISH KUMAR, J.
kas / dk
CRL.O.P.Nos.20355-20358 /2017
&CRL.MP.Nos.12200-12207/2017
06.12.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
