Crl.p/6853/2024 Of M/S Century Jointdevelopments Pvt Ltd v. Income Tax Departement

Digitally signed by HK HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OFKARNATAKA HC-KAR IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24 DAY OF JUNE, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR CRIMINAL PETITION NO.6853 OF 2024 (482(Cr.PC)/528(BNSS)) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. CENTURY JOINT DEVELOPMENTS PVT LTD NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR SRI MAHESH PRABHU. SRI MAHESH PRABHU. 2. SRI MAHESH PRABHU S/O SUDARSHAN PRABHU, AGED 47 YEARS, OFFICE AT NO.10/1, LAKSHMINARAYANA COMPLEX, PALACE ROAD, VASANTH NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 052. BANGALORE - 560 052. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI M.V. SESHACHALA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI NAGHARISH G.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. INCOME TAX DEPARTEMENT NO.59, 4 FLOOR, NO.59, 4 FLOOR, HMT BHAVAN, BELLARY ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 032 BY ITS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, OR INCOME TAX (TDS). …RESPONDENT (BY SRI Y.V. RAVI RAJ, ADVOCATE) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO QUASH THE COMPLAINT REGISTERED IN CC.NO.182/2024, BEFORE THE SPECIAL COURT FOR ECONOMIC OFFENCES, BENGALURU, PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A, ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER 1. In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: "a. Quash the complaint registered in CC No.182/2024, before the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, produced as Annexure-A. Bengaluru, produced as Annexure-A. b. Quash the cognizance taken and issue of summons dated 20.06.2024 of the offence alleged in CC dated 20.06.2024 of the offence alleged in CC No.182/2024, by the Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru Annexure-D. Offences, Bengaluru Annexure-D. c. Quash the sanction order dated 06.08.2018 issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax-TDS, produced as Annexures-C. d. Pass such other suitable order as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of the present case." 2. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondent-Revenue and perused the material on record. 3. In addition to reiterating the various contentions urged in the petition and referring to the material on record, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners invited my attention to the sanction order dated 06.08.2018 passed under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act in order to contend that the petitioners had deducted TDS and had credited the same to the respondent-revenue together with interest prior to the impugned sanction order despite which the respondent has proceeded to file the impugned complaint of which the trial court has taken cognizance in CC No.182/2024 for the offences punishable under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act. It is contended that though the petitioners had already made payment together with interest and requested for compounding, the same was erroneously not considered by the respondent and failure to appreciate this by the trial court while passing the impugned order taking cognizance is illegal and arbitrary and the same is without application of mind and the same deserves to be quashed. HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21932 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioners filed an application seeking compounding, they did not clear the arrears and as such, question of granting any relief in favour of the petitioners in the present petition does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, which reads as under: "ORDER HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:21932 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though the petitioners filed an application seeking compounding, they did not clear the arrears and as such, question of granting any relief in favour of the petitioners in the present petition does not arise in the facts and circumstances of the petition and it is liable to be dismissed. 5. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the impugned order dated 20.06.2024, which reads as under: "ORDER 1. The complainant has filed the complaint under section 200 of Cr.P.C alleging that accused persons having committed the offence punishable under section 276B r/w sec.278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The complainant is a public servant, hence recording of sworn statement is dispensed with as contemplated under section 200(a) of Cr.P.C. The complaint is filed based on the sanction accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax (TDS), Bengaluru. 3. Perused the complaint averments and contents of the annexed documents filed along with the complaint. Accused No.1 is a company engaged in HC-KAR the business of real estate development. The accused No.2 being Director of accused No.1/company, is responsible for payment on which TDS is deducted and that he was the person in-charge and responsible to the company for conduct of business of the accused No.1/company. Accused No.1 company having found non remittance of TDS to Central Government Account by the accused No.2 for the Financial Year 2013-14, though the tax being deducted from the concerned, are alleged to have committed offence u/sec.276B of the IT Act. Further accused No.2 being responsible for day to day affairs of accused No.1/company having defaulted in complying the provisions of Income Tax Act, is also Guilty under 278B of the IT Act, thereby accused Nos.1&2 have committed offence punishable under section 276B r/w/sec.278B of the Income Tax Act. 4. The complaint averments coupled with the annexed documents at this stage prima-facie discloses that accused persons having committed the offences punishable under section 276B r/w/sec/278B of the Income Tax Act. Hence, this court proceeds to pass the following: ORDER Cognizance is taken under section 190(1)(a) of Cr.P.C., of the offences punishable under Section 276B r/w/sec.278B of the Income Tax Act The office is directed to register the case against the accused Nos.1 and 2 in Register-III and issue summons under section 204 of Cr.P.C to the accused Nos.1 and 2 by RPAD. Returnable by: 30-07-2024." 6. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the trial court in C.C.No.182/2024 taking cognizance of the offences alleged against the petitioners will indicate that various contentions urged by the petitioners as regarding payment of the TDS together with interest has not been considered or appreciated by the trial court while passing the impugned order, which is clearly a non-speaking, cryptic and unreasoned order without any application of mind and without assigning any cogent or valid reasons as to why the various contentions urged by the petitioners have been rejected. Under these circumstances, without expressing any merits/demerits of the rival contentions and in order to enable the trial court to reconsider the matter afresh, as regards taking of cognizance or otherwise and in order to provide one more opportunity in favour of the petitioners to put forth all the contentions before the trial court, I deem it just and appropriate to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the trial court in C.C.No.182/2024 is hereby set aside; remit the matter back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. 7. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER (i) The petition is hereby allowed. (ii) The impugned order dated 20.06.2024 passed by the trial court in C.C.No.182/2024 is hereby set aside; (iii) The matter is remitted back to the trial court for reconsideration afresh in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be entitled to appear before the trial court on the next date of hearing and put forth the pleadings/documents etc., which shall be considered by the trial court before proceeding further in the matter; (iv) It is made clear that the present order is passed under peculiar/special facts and circumstances of the case and the same shall be not treated as a precedent nor shall carry any precedential value of the case whatsoever. hkh. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE