M/S SUPREME ALLOYS PVT.LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SH. SAHIL ARORA & ANR. vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE (THROUGH SH. PRADEEP KUMAR)

PDF · subscribers
CRL.M.C./7622/2026HC DelhiDLHC01048879202612 October 2026Author: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The Delhi High Court, at this pre-cognizance stage, found it inappropriate to interdict the proceedings before the learned ACJM. The Court noted that the matter was fixed for hearing on the point of summoning, which is the appropriate stage for the petitioners to agitate their pleas. The Court disposed of the petition with a clear direction that the learned ACJM shall consider the aspects raised by the petitioners and pass a reasoned order on cognizance and summoning. The petitioners were granted liberty to avail appropriate remedies against any order that may be passed subsequently. The Court did not decide on the merits of the allegations but ensured the petitioners' contentions would be considered at the appropriate juncture.

What were the facts?

The petitioners, M/s Supreme Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and its Director, Mr. Sahil Arora, seek to quash a complaint case filed by the Income Tax Office. The complaint, filed on 11.03.2026, pertains to alleged violations of Section 276B, 278B, and 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The core allegation is that the company deducted Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) in financial years 2012-13 but failed to deposit it within the prescribed time under Section 200 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. Petitioner No. 2 is alleged to be in charge of the company's business. Sanction for prosecution was granted on 24.04.2024. The ACJM issued notice to the accused for hearing on the point of summoning before cognizance is taken. The matter is listed for hearing on 13.10.2026.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the complaint case filed under Section 276B, 278B, and 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is liable to be quashed due to delay in sanction and filing, and non-consideration of reasonable cause? Assessee's Contentions: - The principal TDS and interest were deposited before the first Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2015. - The sanction and complaint were filed after an inordinate delay. - Reasonable cause under Section 278AA of the Act was not considered, as the company was facing liquidation proceedings. - There is no specific averment regarding the role of Petitioner No. 2. - No cognizance has been taken, and no process has been issued; petitioners are to be heard before cognizance under Section 223 of BNSS, which is the appropriate stage to agitate these pleas. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the revenue regarding the quashing of the complaint at this stage.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 276B,Section 278B,Section 278E,Section 200,Section 279(1),Section 278AA,Section 223

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
$~83 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI # CNR No. DLHC010488792026 + CRL.M.C. 7622/2026, CRL.M.A. 31815/2026, CRL.M.A. 31816/2026 M/S SUPREME ALLOYS PVT.LTD THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR, SH. SAHIL ARORA & ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. Sameer Rohatgi, Mr. Namit Suri, Mr. Preetpal Singh and Mr. Anish Singh, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICE (THROUGH SH. PRADEEP KUMAR) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddharth Sinha, SSC, Mr. Lakshay and Ms. Priya Nisha Minz, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN DATTA % 12.10.2026

O R D E R

1.

The petitioner seeks quashing of Complaint Case No. 534/2026. The complaint is under Section 276B, 278B and 278E of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“Act”). The complaint was filed by the Income Tax Office, Ward- 77(4), New Delhi on 11.03.2026. It is pointed out that sanction under Section 279(1) of the Act was granted on 24.04.2024. 2. The allegation is that the company deducted TDS in financial years 2012-13 and did not deposit it within the prescribed time as prescribed under Section 200 of the Act read with Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. 3. The petitioner no.2 (Director of the petitioner no.1) is said to be in charge and responsible for the conduct of the company’s business. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2026 at 11:20:56

4.

On 27.03.2026, the learned ACJM (Special Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts issued notice to the proposed accused for hearing them on the point of summoning, before cognizance, under Section 223 of BNSS is taken. On 24.07.2026, the matter was adjourned at the petitioner’s request and is now listed on 13.10.2026. 5. The petitioner contends as follows: i. That the principal TDS and interest were deposited in the year 2012- 13 before the first Show Cause Notice dated 19.02.2015. ii. The sanction and the complaint came after an inordinate delay. iii. Reasonable cause under Section 278AA of the Act was not considered, i.e. the company/ petitioner no.1 was facing liquidation proceedings. iv. There is no averment as regards the specific role of petitioner no.2. v. No cognizance has been taken and no process has been issued in the matter yet. The petitioners are to be heard before cognizance under Section 223 of BNSS is taken, which would be the appropriate stage where the aforesaid pleas can be agitated and the same shall necessarily be duly considered.

6.

Considering the circumstances, and particularly the fact that the matter is fixed for hearing on the point of summoning, at this stage, this Court does not find it appropriate to interdict with the proceedings before the learned ACJM (Special Acts), Central, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi at the pre-cognizance stage.

7.

The petition is accordingly disposed of while making it clear that the learned ACJM shall consider the aforesaid aspects raised by the petitioners and a reasoned order shall be passed on cognizance and summoning. This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2026 at 11:20:56

8.

The petitioners are at liberty to avail appropriate remedies in accordance with law against any order that may be passed.

9.

The petition is disposed of in the above terms. Pending applications also stand disposed of.

SACHIN DATTA, J OCTOBER 12, 2026/uk

This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/10/2026 at 11:20:56

More judgments on Section 200

All 92 judgments and leading authorities on Section 200 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →