Delhi District Court
Ito vs M/S. Brahmaputra Infra Project Limited ... on 3 May, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT
ADDL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts):CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No.536140/2016
F.Y. 2012-13
ITO vs M/s. Brahmaputra Infra Project Limited & Anr.
JUDGMENT
(a) Name of complainant :Income Tax Office through Ms. Mahima Arora, ITO.
(b) Name, parentage, residence: 1) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani, Managing Director, C/o Brahmaputra House, A-7, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037
2) Sh. Suneet Kumar Todi, C/o Brahmaputra House, A-7, Mahipalpur, New Delhi-110037
(c) Offence complained of/ proved : U/s 276B r/w Sec. 278-B of Income Tax Act,1961.
(d) Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty (e) Final order : Acquitted (f) Date of such order : 03.05.2019 Date of Institution of complaint : 06.06.2016 Arguments heard/order reserved : 16.04.2019 Date of Judgment : 03.05.2019 ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 1 of 19
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. The complainant through Ms. Mahima Arora, Income Tax Officer, filed the present complaint in discharge of official duties against company M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject ltd. and accused Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Sh. Suneet Kumar Todi being its Director for the offence punishable u/s 276-B r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act (for short the 'Act'), 1961 pertaining to Financial Year (for short FY) 2012-13.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject limited company, had deducted certain TDS amounts for the relevant Assessment Year in accordance with the provisions of the Act but not deposited the same with the Government account within prescribed time and accused directors are liable for such delay. Hence, present complaint.
3. The pre-summoning evidence was dispensed with as complainant was a government servant and filed complaint in discharge of official duties in terms of section 200 Cr.P.C.
4. The accused were summoned, accused Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi, MD and Director of company appeared before the court and copy of complaint and of documents were supplied to them and the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence.
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 2 of 19
5. Ms. Mahima Arora, ITO, examined as CW1 in pre-
charge evidence and deposed on the lines of facts as alleged in the complaint. She has proved his complaint as Ex.CW1/1, sanction order as Ex.CW1/2, list of witnesses as Ex. CW-1/3, details of late deposit of TDS is Ex. CW-1/4, show cause notice under section 2(35) of the Act is Ex. CW1/5 and Ex. CW1/6, replies of show cause notice is Ex. CW1/7 and Ex. CW1/8 and order under section 2(35) of the Act as Ex. CW1/9 and Ex. CW1/10. She further proved show cause notices u/s 279(1) of the I.T. Act dated 28/30.03.2016 as Ex. CW-1/11 and Ex. CW1/12, its replies as Ex. CW-1/13 and Ex. CW1/14. During cross examination, she admitted she has not filed all the records with the complaint. She stated that she came to know about the facts of the case from the record and proceedings conducted by her predecessor. She admitted |Ex. CW1/4 contains details of tax deducted and not deposited within time. She also admitted the name of company is not appearing in Ex. CW1/4. She stated that the details of Ex. CW1/4 after feeding TAN number of the company. She stated that the proposal for prosecution dated 15.03.2016 was sent to CIT by her predecessor which is Ex. CW1/D1. She failed to whether copy of Ex. CW1/4 was served upon accused or not. She failed to explain the content of Ex. CW1/2 but it denied the suggestion that complaint is filed without verifying the complete record and by concealing the relevant documents. In her further cross examination during post charge evidence, she stated that the records pertaining to TDS was verified before filing the complaint which was drafted by her predecessor. She denied ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 3 of 19 the suggestion that she has not verified the TDS before filing of the complaint. However, she failed to name the person who had signed and filed the TDS return. She admitted that TDS return is not part of the complaint. She failed to confirm or deny as to whether TDS return was put before the CIT before grant of sanction but claimed that CIT has not asked for the TDS return. She admitted TAN number is not mentioned in the Ex. CW1/4. She admitted the averment in para 6 based on sanction order and there is no other document filed in proof contents of para 6 of the complaint. She stated that she do not remember the names of the accused persons. She stated that Assessing Officer himself does not decided the principal officer and it was decided only after show cause notice served under section 2(35) to all the directors and reply filed is considered and put before this Commissioner to decided the Principal Officer. She failed to explain about the comments of Ex. CW1/7.
6. Smt. Lata Sagar, ITO has also examined as CW2. She stated that she had issued notice under section 2(35) of the Act and after considering the reply pass order dated 14.03.2016 holding accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi as principal officer. During cross-examination, she stated that she has mentioned that accused are actively participating in the functioning and management of the company on the basis of record. However, she failed to explain the document annexed with the complaint. During her further cross- examination in post charge evidence, she has stated that notice under section 2(35) was issued on the basis of the ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 4 of 19 statement generated by system and record available on the MCA portal. She failed to state whether she has verified the MCA record to confirm whether the company was merged with other company. She admitted that she has not seen the TDS return and had only seen the default reflecting in ITD system. She has also stated that she has not verified the nature of payment on which TDS was deducted. She admitted that she has not aware about any guidelines with respect to notice under section 2(35) of the Act. She denied the suggestion that pass order under 2(35) in a mechanical manner without verifying the claim.
7. After hearing arguments, charge for offence 276-B r/w 278-B of the I.T. Act was framed against company as well accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi on 11.09.2018. However, ld. Session court vide order dated 16.07.2018 has partly allowed the revision petition and name of company M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject ltd was expunged and deleted from the array of parties since the said company was merged with M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Ltd and therefore, the trial remain only in respect of the accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi.
8. In post charge evidence, CW-1 i.e. complainant was recalled and cross examined by Ld. Defence counsel. After closing of post charge evidence the matter was adjourned for statement of accused.
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 5 of 19
9. Statements of accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi were recorded u/s 313 Cr.P.C. read with section 281 Cr.P.C separately. In the statement, accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi denied the allegations and submitted that accused have been falsely implicated in this case. In his statement accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi stated that the delay in deposit occurred due to late receipt of payment from customers i.e. government department. He also stated that the company was maintaining accounts on accrual basis and tax is deductible as and when expenses are accounted for and does not raise presumption of having paid the amount to payee. He denied that notice under section 2(35) of the Act and show cause for prosecution was issued to him be principal officer of the company. He also claimed that the prosecution was filed without verifying the TDS return or conducting any enquiry/investigation. Accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi also claimed that his duties in the company is to look after execution and development of new technologies as he is bachelor of engineering. He also claimed that default occurred due to non payment or delayed payment of the work executed as infrastructure project there is long gestation period and there were numerous litigation at the instance of government or the other parties.
10. Accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani examined himself as competent witness in terms of section 315 Cr.PC as DW-1. He stated that he is a B. Tech Graduate and appointed on board of ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 6 of 19 director of accused no.1 for looking after business development and project execution. He stated in the year F.y.12-13, M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject ltd was merged with M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure ltd w.e.f 01.04.2012 and therefore, the said company was not in existing the year F.Y. 2012-13. He stated that he was only looking after the tendering process, networking and liasoning with stakeholder. He stated that he never actively participated in financial affairs of accused no.1 including deduction, collection of deposit of TDS or complying with provision of Income Tax Act. He stated that Rose T. John as told to him by the company was working as Manager-Account and was solely and exclusively responsible for financial affairs of the company including deduction and deposit of TDS. He stated that Rose T. John was only reporting to him in relation to the work being looked after by him and not in respect of TDS or Financial matter. He stated that Rose T. John was also reporting to other director or their respective area of operation. He stated that his reply dated 17.02.2016 and 27.04.2016 was not considered before filing of the complaint. He had mentioned in detail his scope of work and responsibility in the company which pertains to business development and project execution only. He relied amalgamation order dated 04.01.2013 is Ex. DW1/1 and his education qualification is Ex. DW1/2. During cross-examination, he admitted that he was one of the promoter of the company. He stated that Mr. Rose T. John was responsible for filing of the return of income of Tax for the financial year 2012-13. He also stated that ITR of company were never discussed or brought to the table of director before ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 7 of 19 filing with the department. He admitted that he is one of the signatory of the bank account of SBI and Allahabad Bank. However, he stated that he was not looking after the day-to- day affairs of the company. He stated that he was not holding any managerial position in the relevant period and was Non- Executive Director in the M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure Limited. In his re-examination by ld. Counsel for accused, he has filed copy of TDS return for M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Limited which are Ex. DW1/A and the delineation of duties of accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani is Ex. DW1/5 and reply dated 17.02.2016 filed by the Rose T. John claiming himself as principal officer of the company Ex. DW1/8 and reply of company is Ex. DW1/9. In his further cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the Ex. DW1/5 does not reflect the duties of accused. He also denied that he was deciding upon financial affairs of the company.
11. Accused Suneet Kumar Todi, was examined as DW2. He also claimed that he was looking after the business development and execution for the company at Pune and operating from Mumbai. He specifically stated that he was not person responsible for deduction and deposit of TDS return and never looked into financial of affairs company. He also stated that Rose T. Johan was looking after the deposit and deduction of TDS return and his reply dated 22.02.2016 and 27.04.2016 were not considered before the filing of the complaint. He also claimed the company did not use the fund generated from TDS for business of personal use. During cross-examination, he ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 8 of 19 stated the Rose T. Johan was the concerned officer for deduction and deposit of TDS with respect to third party payments. He produced the letter Ex. DW2/A dated 03.05.2016 of Rose T. John in support of his claimed that Rose T. John was assigned the duty of collection and deposit of TDS. He denied the suggestion that he deliberately trying to shift the responsibility upon Rose T. John. He dined that he and Sanjeev Kumar Prithani were in control of financial and other affairs of company.
12. I have heard the arguments on behalf of both the parties and gone through the record of the case. I have also gone through the relevant provisions of Income Tax Act, 1961.
13. Relevant provisions of section 276B & 278B of the Act are reproduced below for reference:-
[276B. Failure to pay tax to the credit of Central Government under Chapter XIID or XVIIB. - If a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government, - the tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB; or the tax payable by him, as required by or under, - sub-section (2) of section 115-O; or the second proviso to section 194B, he shall be 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] [278B. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.
14. It is argued on behalf of the complainant that the case ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 9 of 19 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt against the accused person in view of the testimony of CW1. He submits that the order U/s 2(35), sanction order and the documents pertaining to TDS default were proved by the complainant witnesses. He prays for conviction of the accused.
15. On the other hand, ld. Counsel for accused argued that vicarious liability arise only when the commission of offence is proved beyond any reasonable doubt against the principal actor which in case of section 278 of IT Act is company. It is argued that in case of vicarious liability the conditions stipulated to fasten criminal liability have to be strictly construed as the person is sought to be made vicariously liable for an act committed by some other person. It is argued that prosecution has miserably failed to point out the role of accused in commission of offence and has merely attempted to establish her case based on vague and ambiguous allegations. It is argued that accused were not "person incharge of and responsible for the conduct of the business of the company". The word used in this sub section is "and" therefore both of these two ingredients have to be alleged and then proved by the prosecution. When there is no allegation in the complaint itself, complainant cannot improve it by letting in evidence later on. It is argued that accused have been charged by treating them as principal officers of the company by invoking section 2(35) of the Act, which section is not relevant as explained herein above, only because they held that the designation of directors in the company and infact the accused ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 10 of 19 were not incharge of and were not responsible for conduct of day-to-day affairs of the company.
16. It was also argued that complaint is not maintainable as the record of TDS return is not brought to show the alleged default and the person responsible for such alleged default but has exclusively relied on the stated report generated from ITD system (Ex. CW1/4). He also argued that Ex.CW1/4 is a computer generated document and the complainant has failed to prove its authenticity, its source of receipt so much so that the document is only a certified true copy and the original thereof has not been placed on record for verification. He also pointed out that based on this reply of Mr. rose T. John, on 10.03.2016 show cause notice under section 2(35) of the Act were issued to all the named directors, Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Mr. Sunnet Kumar Todi and reply was filed by them. He also argued that the complaint is conspicuously silent about the role played by them to whom the show cause notice were issued under section 2(35) of the Act and in para 4 of the complaint sole reliance has been placed on order dated 14.03.2016(Ex. CW1/9 and Ex. CW1/10) passed under section 2(35) in the case of the accused persons.
17. He also argued that cross examination and material placed on record proves beyond reasonable doubt that there is no evidence to substantiate the allegations made in para 7 of the complaint or the averments made in para 8(a) of the sanctions Ex. CW1/2 and the same are arbitrary, whimsical, ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 11 of 19 and, therefore, the sanction granted are contrary to the provisions of and the accused are liable to be acquitted. z
18. Whether accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi were the Principal Officers and person responsible for deduction and deposit of TDS:
Section 2(35) of the Act deals with expression 'principal officer'. Relevant para of section 2(35) of the Act is reproduced below:
"(35) 'principal officer', used with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public body or any association of persons or any body of individuals, means-
the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the authority, company or association, or body, or any person connected with the management or administration of the local authority, company, association or body upon whom the [Assessing Officer] has served a notice of his intention of treating him as the principal officer thereof'.
Section 200(1): Any person deducting any sum in accordance with (the foregoing porvisions of this Chapter) shall pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs.
(2) Any person being an employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 shall pay, within the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs.
(3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred to in subsection (1A) of Section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central Government within the prescribed time, (prepare such statements for such period as may be prescribed) and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed incometax form and verified in such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed.
Relevant para of section 204 is reproduced as under:-
"Section 204: Meaning of "persons responsible for paying"
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 12 of 19 * * *
(iii) In the case of credit, or, as the case may be, payment of any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act, the payer himself, or, if the payer is a company, the company itself including the principal officer thereof".
19. The complainant has claimed that her predecessor had issued show cause notice under section 2(35) of the Income Tax Act to Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Sh. Suneet Kumar Todi who had filed their reply Ex. CW1/7 and Ex. CW1/8. She further claimed that by the order dated 14.03.2016 under section 2(35) has declared that Sh. Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Sh. Suneet Kumar Todi as the principal Officer(s) of company.
20. CW-1 also stated that the proposal for launching prosecution was put before CIT concerned who had issued the show cause notice under section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act to the above named directors vide Ex. CW1/11 and Ex. CW1/12 and the reply is Ex. CW1/13 and Ex. CW1/14, wherein it is mentioned that for all TDS purpose Mr. Rose T. John was the responsible person.
21. However, during cross examination, she stated that she is not aware about the names of accused persons and they being the independent director are arrayed as accused and notice under section 2(35) was issued on the basis of record maintained by ROC. She admitted she is not aware abut whether reply of accused was considered to the show cause ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 13 of 19 notice before order under 2(35) was passed.
22. Admittedly, the notice under section 2(35) were issued to Sh. S.K. Todi and Sanjeev Kumar Prathani and they were held to be responsible for affairs of company as per Ex. CW1/9 and Ex. CW1/10. However, all the above accused in their reply categorically denied them being principal officer of company. While passing of the order under section 2(35), it is mentioned that reply of accused has not been accepted by the Assessing Officer. However, the basis of arriving such findings is missing in the order Ex. CW1/9 and Ex. CW1/10.
23. The provision under section 2(35) is two fold. Apart from the management of a company, the other individuals namely secretary, treasurer, management or agent can also be considered as Principal Officer. Mr. Rose T. John was admittedly the Manager Account having the power of issuance of cheques. As per the TRACES module, login is provided to a company which is used for giving the details of the person responsible for deduction and deposit of tax. Copy of the said TRACES login showing the person responsible is not filed with the complaint, despite the accused has taken categorically stands and put suggestion to the complainant witness that accused is not person responsible for deduction and deposit of tax. The complain has chosen not to lead evidence to show that it was accused who has been mentioned in the TRACES module login as the person responsible for the affairs of accused company. The complainant has filed the default summary which was ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 14 of 19 stated to be generated from the TRACES module, the default summary does not mentions the name of the person who was responsible for deduction and deposit of tax. However, accused has filed the TDS return Ex. DW1/A in which the name of person responsible for deduction of tax is mentioned as Sandeep Rastogi. As per proposal dated 15.03.2016 Ex. CW1/D1 there was a proposal for prosecution against Suneet Kumar Todi, Satish Chandra Gupta, Sanjeev Kumar Prithani, Om Kumar and Rajesh Sharma. The authenticity of same has not been disputed by the complainant and has not relied upon the said document in the complaint. For reason best known the complainant has not filed the copy of notice under section 279(1) sent to Satish Chandra Gupta, Om Kumar and Rajesh Sharma. Even, the order under section 279(1) has only mentioned that since the other directors are independent directors and they have not been prosecuted but has not explained why the person responsible of deduction tax ie. Sandeep Rastogi and Rose T. John are not prosecuted. This manifestly shows that complainant has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed material information.
24. In Kalanithi Maran Vs. Union of India (2018) 92 Taxmann.com 308 Madras, while dealing with a case related to Non-Executive Chairman of the company, Hon'ble Madras High Court observed that the main criteria for treating a person as a Principal Officer was that he should have been in-charge of the management, administration and day-to-day affairs of the company. In para 9.1, It was observed as under: -
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 15 of 19 "It is pertinent to note that the 2nd respondent has not produced any material to establish that the petitioner was responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the company. In the absence of any material, the 2nd respondent should not have come to the conclusion that the petitioner is the Principal Officer. The reasoning given by the 2nd respondent are without any materials to substantiate the same. Unless the 2 nd respondent make out a prima facie case against the petitioner of his liability and obligation as Principal Officer in the day-to- day affairs of the company as Chairman- cum-director of the company, under section 278 B of the Income Tax Act, the petitioner could not be prosecuted for the offence committed by the company. In the absence of any material, the show cause notice itself, prima facie disclosing the responsibility of the petitioner for running of the day-to-day affairs of the company process, could not have been issued against him. The petitioner cannot be made to undergo the ordeal of a trial unless it could be prima facie disputed that he was legally liable for the failure of the company in paying the amount deducted to the credit of ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 16 of 19 the company. Otherwise, it would be a travesty of justice to prosecute the petitioner and ask him to prove that the offence is committed without his knowledge. A mere allegation that the petitioner is incharge of the conduct of the company is not sufficient to hold that the petitioner is the Principal Officer. There should be credible material to show his active involvement in the conduct and management and business of the company"
25. Thus, even a chairman or director, because of such status alone, would not be liable for prosecution unless it is shown that he is connected with the management or administration of the company or that he is in-charge of and responsible for, the conduct of the business of any such company. Here, accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani is a Non- Executive director. No material was annexed with the complaint to indicate that he was concerned with the management or administration of the company or that he was the person responsible for deduction and/or deposit of TDS. His such role was inferred because complainant and sanctioning authority assumed him to be involved in day-to-day financial affairs of the company. Thus, the very premise, on which prosecution has been launched qua him, is evidently erroneous and mistaken one. Though sec. 278E of Income Tax Act talks about presumption of culpable mental state but before invoking the ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 17 of 19 same, prosecution is duty bound to prove the basic and foundational facts. Here, as already noticed above, foundation of the prosecution is faulty. There is nothing in the complaint or the documents annexed with the complaint which may even remotely suggest that accused persons were responsible for the day-to-day affairs of the accused company or deduction and deposit of TDS. Similarly, no evidence has been led by the complainant against accused Suneet Kumar Todi to show his responsibility for timely deduction and deposit of TDS whereas as Ex. DW1/A it was Sandeep Rastogi who was responsible for deduction of TDS. Mere directorship make in responsible for tax liability. In his evidence, it has categorically claimed that he was professional employee director to look after business development and project execution.
26. Whether there was delay in deposit of TDS amount: As per the income Tax Act, the TDS amount deducted in a month should have been deposited on or before 7 th of the subsequent month. As per Ex. CW-1/4 running from page no. 12 to 39, there was default in timely deposit of TDS. The accused have not disputed that there was delay in deposit of TDS amount. In view of the amalgamation of company M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject ltd with M/s Brahmaputra Infrastructure ltd and observation of Ld. Revisional Court in its order dated 16.07.2018 whereby name of M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject was expunged, no liability can be fastened upon the said company as it no more exists in the eyes of law.
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 18 of 19
27. The complainant has failed to bind accused persons as the person responsible for deduction and deposit of TDS as it neither produce the tax return, TRACES login or other material to show their liability towards the default.
28. In view of the aforesaid discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi beyond reasonable doubt and both deserves benefit of doubt in view of the material lacunae in the complaint and the evidence led with respect to their vicarious liability in relation to company. Moreover, accused persons have demonstrated by affirmative evidence that offence was committed without their knowledge as there were not looking after the deduction and deposit of TDS in terms of proviso of section 278 B of the Income Tax Act.
29. Accordingly, accused Sanjeev Kumar Prithani and Suneet Kumar Todi are acquitted for the offence u/s 276B r/w section 278 B of the Income Tax Act for deducting TDS for the financial year 2012-13 and not depositing the same in the Government account within prescribed period.
30. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost.
Digitally signed PAWAN by PAWAN
SINGH SINGH RAJAWAT
Date: 2019.05.04
RAJAWAT 16:42:06 +0530
(PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
ACMM(Special Acts) CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI
Announced in Open Court
on 03rdof May, 2019.
ITO vs M/s Brahmaputra Infraproject Ltd. & Anr. CC No. 536140/16 19 of 19