Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.37 seconds)Shital N. Shah And Others vs Income-Tax Officer on 27 August, 1990
Section 2(35) specifies that the 'principal officer' with
reference to a Company would be any person on whom the
I.T. Officer has served a notice of his intention of
treating him as principal officer. Admittedly no such
notice was served upon the applicants. Despite the
said observations of the Madras High Court in the case
of Shital N. Shah and Ors. v. Income-Tax Officer,
(188 page 376 of I.T.R.) the learned Metropolitan
Magistrate has held that unless opportunity to the
prosecution is given to lead evidence to substantiate
or to prove that the accused Nos. 4 to 7 were incharge
and responsible for the conduct of the business of the
accused No. 1, Company this defence cannot be taken by
the accused at this stage but the accused can raise
this point at the time of framing of charge.
M.A. Unneerikutty And Ors. vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 18 March, 1994
9. It must be fairly stated that at the time of
hearing of the said application for discharge, the
attention of the Court was not drawn to the case of
M.A. Unneerikutty and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax, I.T.R. 281 and 606, Kerala High Court
which clearly states that it is necessary that
complainant must lead and show some acceptable
materials that the partners were incharge of and
responsible for the conduct of the business of firm to
make them also vicariously responsible along with it.
A mere allegation to that effect will not be
sufficient. There should be credible material to show
their active involvement in the conduct and management
of the business of the firm.
Section 279 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
Sham Sundar & Ors vs State Of Haryana on 21 August, 1989
11. Unless the complaint disclosed a primafacie
case against the applicants/accused of their liability
and obligation as principal Officers in the day today
affairs of the Company as Directors of the Company
under Section 278(b) the applicants cannot be
prosecuted for the offences committed by the Company.
In the absence of any material in the complaint itself
primafacie disclosing responsibility of the accused
for the running of the day to day affairs of the
Company process could not have been issued against
them. The applicants cannot be made to undergo the
ordinal of a trial unless it could be primafacie showed
that they are legally liable for the failure of the
Company in paying the amount deducted to the credit of
the Company. Otherwise, it would be a travesty of
justice to prosecute them and ask them to prove that
the offence is committed without their knowledge. The
Supreme Court in the case of Shyam Sundar v. State
of Haryana reported in A.I.R. 1984 page 53 held as
follows:-
Section 278 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
The Income Tax Act, 1961
Section 194 in The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Entire Act]
1