SUSHIL SURI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE revision petitions are taken up together as they arise from the same proceedings. Out of the petitioners, only Mr. Neeraj Jain is not a director in the company known as Dr. Morepen Ltd. The petitioners are aggrieved by the summoning taken of the offence punishable under s. 276B r/w s. 279 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of the financial years 2002 -03, 2003 -04 and 2004 -05.

(2.) THE short point raised by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is that s. 276B is the punishing section for, inter alia, default in depositing the tax deducted at source under various provisions contained in Chapter XVII -B of the IT Act. Essentially, when a "person" fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, the tax deducted at source by him then he is, by virtue of s. 276B, punishable with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to seven years and with fine. The reference to "person" in s. 276B is with regard to the requirement of such person to pay to the credit of the Central Government the tax deducted at source collected by him. Sec. 192, which falls under Chapter XVIII -B relates to tax deducted at source in respect of income -tax chargeable under the head "Salaries". There are other similar provisions in respect of dividends (s. 194), rent (s. 194 -I) and other such provisions for different kind of payments. In all these provisions, the reference is to "a person responsible for paying". This expression is defined in s. 204 which also falls under Chapter XVIII -B as under :

(3.) A reference to the provisions of s. 204(i) and (iii) would make it clear that in case the payments are to be made by a company, then the expression "person responsible for paying" shall include the "principal officer" thereof.