Delhi District Court
/ Case No.2630/4 / U.S.276Cc Of Income ... vs . Televox India (P) Ltd. /Convicted ... on 17 March, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIG VINAY SINGH, ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN
MAGISTRATE (SPL. ACTS): CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
In re:
ITO .....COMPLAINANT
VS.
TELEVOX INDIA LTD. ........ACCUSED
CASE NOS. 26 TO 30/4 (FIVE CASES)
U/S. 276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
DATE OF INSTITUTION: 30/3/1987
DATE OF RESERVATION OF JUDGMENT: 17.3.2010
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT: 17.3.2010
COMMON JUDGEMENT
(a) The serial no. of the case: 0240140002991987, 02401R003001987,
02401R003021987, 02401R003011987,
02401R0001291987.
(b) The date of commission of offence: 30.6.1982, 30.6.1983, 30.6.1984,
30.6.1985 & 30.6.1986.
(c) The name of complainant: M.R. Pruthi, Income Tax Officer,
Company CircleV, New Delhi.
(d) The name, parentage, residence: 1. M/s. Televox India (P) Ltd.,
of accused. C/o. Grandlay Cinema Complex, New
Friends Colony, New Delhi.
2. C.L. Batra, Director, 43A, Rajpur Road,
Civil Lines, Delhi.
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
1 of
16 /k/
2
3. Brajesh Batra, Director, 43A, Rajpur
Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
4.Vivek Batra, Director,(already discharged)
43A, Rajpur Road, Civil Lines, Delhi.
(e) The offence complained of/ proved: U/s.276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961.
(f) The plea of accused: Pleaded not guilty.
(g) The final order: A1,2 and 3 Convicted.
(h) The date of such order: 17.3.2010.
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:
1. These are total five complaint cases, filed by the Income Tax Officer against the
abovementioned four accused. Before proceeding further, let it be mentioned that
A4 Vivek Batra was discharged on 16.11.1990 and, therefore, the present
judgment is directed against A1 Company M/s. Televox India (P) Ltd., A2 C.L.
Batra and A3 Brajesh Batra only.
2. The complaints have been filed for the offences u/s.276CC of Income Tax Act,
1961. Section 276CC of Income Tax Act, 1961 provides that if any person willfully
evades furnishing his return of income as required u/s.139 (1) of Income Tax Act,
1961, he shall be punished. Subsection 1 of section 139 of the Act casts
responsibility on a company or firm to furnish the return of its income in the
prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner on or before the due date.
3. In these five complaint cases, separate complaints have been preferred for non
filing of return of income by the A1 company, of which A2 and A3 are claimed to be
the directors and incharge of and responsible for the business of the company.
4. Section 278B of The Income Tax Act, clearly provides that where any offence
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
2 of
16 /k/
3
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 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. 278B (3)provides, " Where an offence under this Act has
been committed by a person, being a company, and the punishment for such
offence is imprisonment and fine, then, without prejudice to the provisions
contained in subsection (1) or subsection(2), such company shall be punished
with fine and every person, referred to in subsection (1), or the director, manager,
secretary or other officer of the company referred to in subsection (2), shall be
liable to be proceeded against and punished in accordance with the provisions of
this Act." From section 278B of the Act it is clear that the proceedings can
be continued against a company.
7. It is now well settled by the judgment of honourable constitution bench of Supreme
Court (Majority View), in the case of Standard Chartered Bank v. Directorate of
Enforcement AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 2622 = 2005 AIR SCW 2829 that ;
" There is no immunity to the companies from prosecution merely because the prosecution
is in respect of offences for which the punishment prescribed is mandatory imprisonment. As
the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, the Court cannot impose that
punishment, but when imprisonment and fine is the prescribed punishment the Court can
impose the punishment of fine which could be enforced against the company. Such a
discretion is to be read into the Section viz., S. 56 of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act
(1973) (FERA) and Ss. 276C and 278B of Incometax Act (1961) so far as the juristic
person is concerned. Of course, the Court cannot exercise the same discretion as regards a
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
3 of
16 /k/
4
natural person. As regards company, the Court can always impose a sentence of fine and
the sentence of imprisonment can be ignored as it is impossible to be carried out in respect
of a company. This appears to be the intention of the Legislature. It cannot be said that,
there is blanket immunity for any company from any prosecution for serious offences merely
because the prosecution would ultimately entail a sentence of mandatory imprisonment. The
corporate bodies, such as a firm or company undertake series of Activities that affect the life,
liberty and property of the citizens. Large scale financial irregularities are done by various
corporations. The corporate vehicle now occupies such a large portion of the industrial,
commercial and sociological sectors that amenability of the corporation to a criminal law is
essential to have a peaceful society with stable economy." (Paras 63, 64)
it was also held that ;
" Thus, because the company cannot be sentenced to imprisonment, the Court has to
resort to punishment of imposition of fine which is also a prescribed punishment. As per the
scheme of various enactments and also the Indian Penal Code, mandatory custodial
sentence is prescribed for graver offences. If the contrary view is accepted, no company or
corporate bodies could be prosecuted for the graver offences whereas they could be
prosecuted for minor offences as the sentence prescribed therein is custodial sentence or
fine. The intention of the Legislature is not to give complete immunity from prosecution to the
corporate bodies for these grave offences. Consequently, even for offences under S. 56(1)
(i), FERA Act , the company could be prosecuted. It is sheer violence to commonsense
that the Legislature intended to punish the corporate bodies for minor and silly offences and
extended immunity of prosecution to major and grave economic crimes".
5. CC no.26/4(old no.853) pertains to the assessment year 19821983 in which its is
alleged that the return of the company was due on 30.6.1982, but it was not filed
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
4 of
16 /k/
5
on or before the due date rather it was filed on 17.2.1984.
CC no.30/4(old no.857) pertains to the assessment year 19831984 in
which its is alleged that the return of this year was also not filed on or before the
due date.
Similarly, CC no.29/4(old no.856) pertains to the assessment year
19841985 and it is claimed that return for this assessment year was not filed on or
before the due date.
Similarly, CC no.27/4(old no.854) pertains to the assessment year
19851986 and it is claimed that return for the income of this assessment year was
not filed on or before the due date i.e. 30.6.1985.
Similarly, CC no.28/4(old no.855) pertains to the assessment year 1986
1987 and it is claimed that return for the income of this assessment year was not
filed on or before the due date i.e. 30.6.1986.
6. Since, all these five complaints were being tried together and the evidence and
proceedings were conducted commonly and, they also involve the same question
of law and facts, therefore, all the five cases are being disposed of vide this
common judgment.
7. Let it be mentioned that it is specifically averred in the complaint that A2 and A3
were directors and thus incharge of and responsible for the conduct and business
of A1 company. It is also alleged that return for the assessment year 19821983
was filed late, on 17.2.1984, which was signed and verified by the A3 Brajesh
Batra, as the director of the company.
8. All the accused were summoned on 30.3.1987 and thereafter, one of the accused
was discharged on 16.11.1990, being A4 Vivek Batra. Thereafter, the complainant
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
5 of
16 /k/
6
led pre charge evidence, and after pre charge evidence, charges were framed
against the accused on 02.7.2003. Before appreciating the evidence led by the
parties, it would also be relevant to mention that at present, the accused no.1
company is unrepresented in this case. When the accused were summoned on
28.4.1995, it was submitted by the A2 and A3 that they do not represent the A1
Company. On 28.4.1995, my Ld. Predecessor ordered issuance of warrants of
attachment of company to compel the attendance of A1 company and thereafter on
24.7.1996 and in the order sheet dated 21.3.1997, it finds mention that A2 is
present for the A1 company also. Thereafter, when the charge was framed on
02.7.2003, charge against the company was also framed through the accused
no.2. A2 never protested that he has never represented the company, and now it
is claimed that none is representing the company. Since, no one is now
representing the company, which earlier was being represented, the proceedings
against the company are to be taken in absentia in terms of section 305 Cr. P. C.
9. In evidence, PW1 M.R. Pruthi, the complainant himself, was examined, who
deposed that the company did not file its return of income on or before the due
dates and as mentioned above. He proved his complaint Ex. PW1/1; authorisation
in terms of section 279 of Income Tax Act, 1961 as Ex. PW1/2. He also proved
that a notice u/s.142 (1) of the Act was issued to the company, which is Ex. PW1/4.
He also deposed that a notice u/s.139 (1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued, but
the accused did not file return despite notices, as above. He deposed that
thereafter he passed assessment u/s.144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, Ex. PW1/5.
This witness during cross examination deposed that as per the records of the
income tax department, A2 and A3 were directors of the company and that,
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
6 of
16 /k/
7
separate show cause notices were not issued to the A2 and A3, nor any show
cause notice was sent to them before launching the prosecution, or for treating
them as principal officers of the company.
10. The complainant also examined PW2 Brij Lal in its favour, who deposed that,
regarding the assessment year 19821983, accused company filed its return on
17.2.1984, although it was due on 30.6.1982. The said return was signed and
verified by the A3 Brajesh Batra, as the director of the company, which is proved
as Ex.PW2/1. This witness also proved the notice issued u/s.139 (2) as Ex. PW2/2
dated 14.9.1982, and the assessment order dated 23.3.1985 as Ex. PW2/3. He
also proved the notice of demand of tax dated 23.3.1985 as Ex. PW2/4. Even this
witness admitted that notice u/s.139 was not separately sent to the directors, nor
notice of demand was sent to them.
11. After completion of the complainant's evidence, all the incriminating evidence was
put to the two accused in their examination u/s.313 r/w. section 281 Cr. P. C. The
two accused admitted that they were directors of the A1 Company. However, they
claimed that they were not principal officers of the company, responsible for filing
the income returns of the company. They claimed that there were five other
directors of the company, who were actively engaged in the affairs of the company,
but they were not made parties in this case. They denied having received any
notice u/s.139 or 142 of Income Tax Act, 1961, the complainant's authorisation
was admitted as a matter of record. They also admitted in their statement, that
prosecution witnesses deposed as per records available with them that the returns
were not filed by the company in time. It is claimed by the accused that they alone
were not responsible for the affairs of the company and other directors were not
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
7 of
16 /k/
8
made parties in the complaint. Although, the accused opted to lead defence
evidence, but despite opportunities, no defence witness was examined by the
accused in their favour.
12. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the accused as well as Ld. Standing counsel for
the complainant and I have also perused their written arguments filed on record.
13. Before appreciating the arguments of both the sides, let it be mentioned that in the
statement of accused, both the accused admitted that they were directors of the
accused company. It has come in the evidence that A3 Brajesh Batra signed and
verified the return of the assessment year 19821983, which was filed late. The
two accused claimed that they were not principal officers of the company. It is not
denied by them that they were the directors. A3 Brajesh Batra nowhere denied
that the return of income for the assessment year 19821983 does not bear his
signatures as a Director. Rather, the said position is admitted by the accused in
their arguments stating that he signed the returns on the asking of Managing
Director.
14. It is argued on behalf of accused that notices were not sent separately to the
directors, either u/s.139 or, u/s.142 of Income Tax Act, 1961. There is no
requirement in law that before any prosecution is launched; any such notice is
required to be issued to the assesee or its director.
15. Section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 casts a mandate on the company to file
its return of income on or before the due date, which in the present matter was 30th
of June of the year the assessment year. It is not in dispute that returns were not
filed, on or before the due date, for the five assessment years in question. As per
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page
8 of
16 /k/
9
section 139 of the Act, it is the duty of assessee to file its return in time and no
obligation is cast upon the income tax department to call upon the return or to give
any show cause notice before launching prosecution. Therefore, this arguments is
without any force. For the same reason, the argument that no notice was given on
the A2 and A3 for treating them as principal officers of the company, is without
force as it is required in law.
16. In the case of Union of India v. Banwari Lal Agarwal AIR 1999 SUPREME
COURT 196 = 1998 AIR SCW 3558 Facts were that, In respect of the
Assessment Years 197879, 197980 and 198081 returns were filed by the
respondent, after search and seizure had taken place under Section 132 of the
Incometax Act. Returns were filed belatedly and the assessments which were made were at a figure more than what was the returned income. Prosecution was launched against the respondent alleging that he had committed an offence under Section 276C of the said Act, since his returns had been filed much after the date of search and he had willfully attempted to evade tax chargeable or imposable under the Act. A contention which was raised was that before any prosecution is launched an opportunity of hearing should have been afforded. This contention was sought to be raised on the basis of the respondent's interpretation of sub section (2) of Section 279. It is held in para 7 as follows;
" We further find that subsection (2) of Section 279 is a provision which enables the Chief Commissioner or the Director General to compound any offence either before or after the institution of proceeding. There is no warrant in interpreting this subsection to mean that before any prosecution is launched either a show cause notice should be given or an opportunity afforded to compound the / CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 9 of 16 /k/ 10 matter. The enabling provision cannot give a right to a party to insist on the Chief Commissioner or the Director General to make an offer of compounding before the prosecution is launched."
17. In the case of Prakash Nath Khanna and another vs. Commissioner of Incometax and another 2004 CRI. L. J. 3362 , Facts were that , For the assessment year 198889 return of income was to be filed on or before 3171988, but was in fact filed on 2031991. Assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act was completed on 2681991. Proceedings for late submission of return were initiated against the appellants under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act and penalty was imposed. Proceedings in terms of Section 276CC of the Act were also initiated. It was argued that the expression "to furnish in due time" occurring in Section 276CC means to furnish within the time permissible under the Act. The return furnished under Section 139(4) at any time before the assessment is made has to be regarded as a return furnished under Section 139(1). It was also argued that the provisions of Section 276CC(i) are not intended to apply to the cases of assessees who have been regularly assessed to incometax and have voluntarily submitted their returns of income without issue of any notice to do so by the Assessing Officer in that behalf, within the time permissible to furnish the return under the Act. That the provision only applies where the amount of tax which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered exceeds Rs. 1,00,000/. That mere delay in filing a return without contumacious conduct and mens rea being established could not make the petitioner liable for prosecution. It is Held by Hon'ble SC as follows;
"18. One of the significant terms used in Section 276CC is 'in due time'. The time / CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 10 of 16 /k/ 11 within which the return is to be furnished is indicated only in subsection (1) of Section 139 and not in subsection (4) of Section 139. That being so, even if a return is filed in terms of subsection (4) of Section 139 that would not dilute the infraction in not furnishing the return in due time as prescribed under subsection (1) of Section 139. Otherwise, the use of the expression "in due time" would lose its relevance and it cannot be said that the said expression was used without any purpose. Before substitution of the expression "clause (i) of subsection (1) of Section 142' by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 141989 the expression used was "subsection (2) of Section 139". At the relevant point of time the assessing officer was empowered to issue a notice requiring furnishing of a return within the time indicated therein. That means the infractions which are covered by Section 276CC to nonfurnishing of return within the time in terms of subsection (1) or indicated in the notice given under subsection (2) of Section
139. There is no condonation of the said infraction, even if a return is filed in terms of subsection (4). Accepting such a plea would mean that a person who has not filed a return within the due time as prescribed under subsections (1) or (2) of Section 139 would get benefit by filing the return under Section 139(4) much later. This cannot certainly be the legislative intent."
"19. Another plea which was urged with some amount of vehemence was that the provisions of Section 276CC are applicable only when there is discovery of the failure regarding evasion of tax. It was submitted that since the return under subsection (4) of Section 139 was filed before the discovery of any evasion, the provision has no application. The case at hand cannot be covered by the expression "in any other case". This argument though attractive has no substance."
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 11 of 16 /k/ 12 "20. The provision consists of two parts. First relates to the infractions warranting penal consequences and the second, measure of punishment. The second part in turn envisages two situations. The first situation is where there is discovery of the failure involving the evasion of tax of a particular amount. For the said infraction stringent penal consequences have been provided. Second situation covers all cases except the first situation elaborated above."
"21. The term of imprisonment is higher when the amount of tax which would have been evaded but for the discovery of the failure to furnish the return exceeds one hundred thousand rupees. If the plea of the appellants is accepted it would mean that in a given case where there is infraction and where a return has not been furnished in terms of subsection (1) of subsection (1) of Section 139 or even in response to a notice issued in terms of sub section (2), the consequences flowing from nonfurnishing of return would get obliterated. At the relevant point of time Section 139(4)(a) permitted filing of return where return has not been filed within subsection (1) and subsection (2). The time limit was provided in clause
(b). Section 276CC refers to "due time" in relation to subsections (1) and (2) of Section 139 and not to subsection (4). Had the Legislature intended to cover subsection (4) also, use of expression "Section 139" alone would have sufficed. It cannot be said that Legislature without any purpose or intent specified only the subsections (1) and (2) and the conspicuous omission of subsection (4) has no meaning or purpose behind it. Subsection (4) of Section 139 cannot by any stretch of imagination control operation of subsection (1) wherein a fixed period for furnishing the return is stipulated. The mere fact that for, purposes of assessment and carrying forward and to set off losses it is treated as one filed within subsections (1) or (2) cannot be pressed into service to claim it to be actually one such, though it is factually and really not by extending it beyond its legitimate purpose." / CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 12 of 16 /k/ 13
18. It is argued on behalf of the accused that although they were directors but they were not managing the affairs of company. In my considered view, once evidence is on record that A3 himself signed the returns for the assessment year 19821983, as a director, it shows that he was incharge of and responsible. It is specifically deposed by the prosecution witnesses that even A2 was so incharge of and responsible as directors. Here the answer given by the A2 and A3 in their statements is important to note. Both these accused were specifically questioned in their cross examination that they were directors/principal officers of the company and they were incharge of and responsible and were actively engaged in the day to day business of the company. To this question, both of them replied that "it is correct; I and Sh. Brajesh Batra were not principal officers responsible for filing the returns of the company. There were five other directors, who were actively engaged in the affairs of the company and an application was also filed, but they were not made the accused in this case". This answer itself revealed that it is not denied by them that they were incharge of and responsible for the affairs of the company, although, they claimed that they were not responsible for the filing of returns. Similarly, the answer given by them to the last but one question shows that they claimed that "I alone was not responsible for the affairs of the company. Other directors were not made parties in this case". Even this reply shows that they were incharge of and responsible for the affairs of the company. Legal requirement is not that the directors on whom vicarious liability is fastened should be responsible specifically for filing return of income. The legal requirement is that all those directors who are incharge of and responsible for the business of the company shall be liable to be proceeded against.
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 13 of 16 /k/ 14
19. Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is relevant to be noted here, which provides that where any offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who at the time the offence was committed was incharge of and was responsible for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty. Subsection 2 of section 278B of the Act further provides that where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence. Therefore, under subsection 2 of section 278 B, even where an offence is committed which is attributable to any neglect on the part of any director, still such director would be liable.
20. Thus, in view of above discussion, it is established that A2 and A3 were not only directors of the company but they were also incharge of and responsible for the business of the company. All that is required is that such directors should be incharge of and responsible for the general business of the company and it is not required in law that only those directors can be prosecuted who are incharge of filing returns,. Such an interpretation is not required.
21. It is argued on behalf of the accused that in absence of verification from the Registrar of Companies, how it can be presumed that the two accused were involved in day to day business of the company. In view of admission of the accused that they were directors, no verification from the ROC was required, as, at the most, in the office of ROC record is maintained as to who is Managing Director / CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 14 of 16 /k/ 15 and who are other directors, but in the office of ROC, no separate record is maintained as to which of the directors are incharge of and responsible of the company and which not.
22. It is also argued that the company went into voluntary winding up, but absolutely no documentary proof is filed on record to show that the company went into voluntary winding up, and except oral allegations in the final arguments, nothing has come on record to suggest that the company voluntarily entered into winding up.
23. It is next argued that in a separate suit for recovery before DRT, other directors/managing directors were made parties and which was settled by the managing director K.L. Bajaj. It does not in any manner help the case of accused as merely because other directors are not made parties in the complainant, the present two directors cannot claim acquittal on the ground that others were not made parties. It may be mentioned that the accused themselves filed form no. 32 on record in which both A2 and A3 are shown as directors since the year 1974 and 1982, respectively.
24. Accused has placed reliance on the case of Aneeta Hada Vs. M/s. Godfather Travels & Tours Pvt. Ltd., 2008(3) CC Cases (SC) page 146. The said judgment is of no help to the accused since in that case, the legal question involved was whether in absence of joining a company as an accused, director/officer of the company can be proceeded or not, in prosecution u/s.138 of N.I. Act? Whereas in the present case, the company itself is an accused along with other directors.
25. Therefore in view of the above legal position and discussion, it is proved by the / CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 15 of 16 /k/ 16 complainant beyond doubt that accused company failed to file its income tax returns on or before due date, with respect to the five assessment years as mentioned above. It is also proved that A2 and A3 were directors and they were incharge of and responsible for the conduct of business of the company and, therefore, they are deemed to be guilty and liable to be punished.
26. Accordingly, A1 Company and A2 and A3 are found guilty and convicted for the offences u/s.276CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 separately for the five assessment years in question and separately in all the five complaints. Arguments on sentence would be heard qua all the five complaints separately on the next date of hearing.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON
17th of MARCH, 2010 (DIGVINAY SINGH)
ADDITIONAL CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE
SPECIAL ACTS, CENTRAL,
TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
/ CASE NO.2630/4 / U.S.276CC OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961/ JUDGMENT/ ITO VS. TELEVOX INDIA (P) LTD. /CONVICTED /DATED 17.3.2010 /Page 16 of 16 /k/