OD- 6 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE. WPO/515/2025 SARAT CHATTERJEE & CO. VSP PVT.LTD.

VS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TDS, KOLKATA ORS.

BEFORE THE HON’BLE JUSTICE RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY Date: 4th August, 2025 Appearance Ms. Arati Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Rosy Banerjee, Adv.

Mr. Ankit Daga, Adv.

..for the petitioner Mr. Tilak Mitra, Adv. …for the respondents

1. The petitioner is aggrieved with the sanction order passed under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the said Act’) for filing of complaint under Section 276B and 278B of the said Act.

2. It is the petitioner’s case that though initially a notice was issued on the petitioner on 27th April, 2022 alleging failure of payment of TDS for the financial year 2019-20 which was followed up by a show cause notice dated 16th August, 2024 alleging delayed payment of TDS to the extent of Rs.13,40,68,652/-, however, by a response in writing dated 5th September, 2024, the petitioner had duly clarified the fact that the delayed deposit was only Rs.13,49,42,657/-. The petitioner had also submitted the details of the challans in respect of the TDS deducted for the financial year 2019-20 and had claimed that it paid Rs.11,17,57,996/- though beyond due date, however, with interest. Still, later by a further detailed response dated 30th September, 2024, the petitioner had once again clarified that the financial constraints prevented the petitioner from making payment in time. According to the petitioner, though there was no delay in respect of depositing Rs.2,31,84,661/- on account of TDS, however, there had been some delay in respect of Rs.11,17,57,996/- as during the relevant period by reasons of the covid pandemic and lock down, the petitioner could not make the payment.

3. Ms. Agarwal, learned Advocate appearing in support of the writ petition would submit that the petitioner had not only paid the entire TDS that had remained unpaid but also paid interest on the same. According to her, though the sanctioning authority for passing an order under Section 279(1) of the said Act was obliged to consider the defence, the same has not been considered. She would submit that though there was a reasonable cause for the failure to pay the tax in time, such aspect has not been appropriately considered while passing the order dated 26th February, 2025. The aforesaid order also does not take into consideration the CBDT circular dated 18th October, 2016.

4. Mr. Mitra, learned Advocate appearing in support of the department would submit that there was no irregularity in passing the aforesaid order. He seeks leave to produce relevant record on the returnable date.

5. Having heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that in this case the petitioner has deposited the entire tax along with the interest and having regard to the CBDT circular dated 18th October, 2016 which, inter alia, provides that no person shall be punishable for any failure referred to in the said provision of Section 276B, if he proves that there was a reasonable cause for such failure, I am of the view, at this stage no further steps should be taken on the basis of the aforesaid sanctioned order dated 26th February, 2025 till the next date of hearing for Mr. Mitra to produce the relevant documents and/or instructions.

6. List this writ petition for further consideration under the same heading in the monthly list of September, 2025.

(RAJA BASU CHOWDHURY, J.)

akg/