AMIT MAHAJAN, J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (‘BNSS’), read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the Complaint Case bearing No. 119/2024 initiated for the offences under section 276B read with section 278B and 278E of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘the Act’) and the summoning order dated 21.10.2024 passed therein, qua the Petitioner.

2. Succinctly stated, a compliant under section 200 of the CrPC was filed by Deputy Commissioner of the Income Tax Department alleging that Accused no. 2/Sh. Sanjeev Mahajan and Accused no. 3/Petitioner- Dr. Manoj Khanna were the Principal Officers/Directors of the Accused no. 1/Company- M/s. Enhance Aesthetic & Cosmetics Studio Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., during the Financial Year 2017-18. Sh. Sanjeev was the wholetime director of the company and the Petitioner was the Managing Director.

3. It was stated that the Accused no. 1/Company is the holder of TAN No. DELE06583D and during the financial year 2017-18, the company had made payments to various persons and had deducted TDS. The total amount of TDS deducted by the accused persons was Rs. 2,09,13,002/- but the said amount of TDS was not deposited into the Government treasury within the stipulated time limit as per the Act.

4. Consequently, the DCIT, Circle - 74(1) issued notice of default dated 05.11.2019 intimating the accused regarding the default committed and the Show Cause Notice dated 09.12.2019 was also issued to Accused no. 2 and the Petitioner.

5. It is stated that Accused no. 2 filed the reply vide letters dated 10.12.2019 and 12.12.2019 wherein he admitted the delay in filing TDS. Vide Letter dated 20.12.2019, Accused no. 2 again admitted the delay in filing TDS.

6. Vide Orders dated 22.12.2019 and 13.01.2020, passed under section 2(35) of the Act, the DCIT, Circle - 74(1) held Sanjeev Mahajan and Petitioner/Manoj Khanna as Principal Officers/Responsible Officers of Accused no. 1/Company.

7. After the case was referred to CIT(TDS), several notices were issued and opportunity of being heard was granted the accused persons. Consequently, the CIT(TDS) after examining the documents on record passed the sanction order dated 18.05.2022 against all the accused for prosecution.

8. The learned Trial Court took cognizance of the complaint filed by the Respondent and passed impugned summoning order dated 21.10.2024, thereby summoning all the accused persons including the Petitioner herein.

9. Aggrieved, the Present petition has been filed seeking quashing of the complaint case as well as the summoning order.

10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has been wrongly summoned in the present case and the complaint along with the consequential proceedings emanating therefrom are liable to be quashed.

11. He submits that the Accused No.2/Sanjeev Mahajan was the CEO and Director of the Company, and was solely responsible for managing affairs of the company and deducting and depositing TDS, which has been admitted by Accused No.2 in his contemporaneous replies placed on record.

12. He submits that the summons have been issued without appreciating that the Petitioner was not responsible for deduction of tax at source and deposit thereof.

13. He also submits that it is not a case where TDS has not been paid, rather the same has been paid belatedly.

14. Per Contra, the learned Counsel for Respondent vehemently opposes the grant of any relief to the Petitioner and submits that it is an admitted position that the Petitioner was the Managing Director of the accused Company and responsible for the day-to-day functions of the company.

15. He further submits that the Sanctioning Authority has passed a detailed Sanction Order after recording it’s satisfaction that there existed sufficient material to establish commission of an offence under the Act, and that the Petitioner, being in charge and responsible for the conduct of the business of