Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: data access in Ito vs Sidharth Ray Etc. on 1 September, 2014Matching Fragments
This order will decide the point of charge. Present complaint has been filed by the complainant Sh. Kamal Khanna, the then ITO, against the following accused persons u/s 276B read with section 279 of Income Tax Act (for short the 'Act'), 1961 for the Financial Year 200304 and 200405 (upto November) (1) Mr. Sidharth Ray, Managing Director (2) Ms. Purva Rakesh, Executive Director (Whole Time Director) (3) Mr. Avinash Mishra, Executive Director (Whole Time Director) (4) Mr. Surojit Sen, Executive Director (Whole Time Director) (5) Mr. Alak Saha, Executive Director and COO (Now expired) (6) Mr. Deepak Sahai, Director (7) Mr. David Manion, Director (8) Mr. Alexander Anthony Arena, Director (Dismissed for nonprosecution) (9) Mr. Yuen Tin Fan, Director (10)Mr. N. Rangachary (Already discharged) (11)Mr. R. Athappan (Already discharged) (12)Mr. K.C. Palanisamy (Already discharged) (13)Mr. Chandran Rathinaswamy (Already discharged) (14)Mr. Gopinath Athappen (Already discharged) (15)Mr. R. Karunanithi (Already discharged) (16)M/s Data Access (India) Ltd. (under liquidation) (17) Mr. Sharat Bhargava (Already expired) ITO vs Sidharth Ray etc. CC No. 24/4 (Old No. 444/5) 1
2.(i) Succinctly, the facts of the case are that a survey operation u/s 133A of the Act was carried out in the business premises of the Company on 16.09.2004 and the books of accounts of the accused company M/s Data Access (India) Limited for the period 200304 onwards were examined. It was found that for the Financial Year 200304, the accused company had deducted tax at source (TDS) under several heads, but had not deposited it with the Government Treasury. The accused company was treated as the assessee in default within the meaning of Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act and an order dated 30.11.2004 was passed raising a demand of Rs.11,69,800/ (TDS Rs.9,41,18,904/ plus interest Rs.75,60,381/) for the Financial Year 200304. The proceedings u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act for the subsequent years were stated to be "under progress" at the time of filing of the present complaint.
At the outset, we furnish the list of the persons who, at the time the offence was committed, were in charge of, and were responsible to, the accused, Data Access (India) Limited for the conduct of the business of the company. These persons were in the management of company until 01.07.2004 and thereafter. Some of these persons continued to be in the management of the company ITO vs Sidharth Ray etc. CC No. 24/4 (Old No. 444/5) 2 even until 29.10.2004.