Court dismisses challenges to delayed tax complaints under Income Tax Act. Age exemption denied; principal officer status determined at trial.

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions challenging complaints under the Income Tax Act for delayed tax deposit. Petitioners above 70 sought exemption from prosecution, citing age and lack of evidence as principal officers. The Court upheld the Commissioner's decision to prosecute, noting exceptions to age exemption rules. It ruled that determination of principal officer status should occur during trial. Petitioners were allowed exemption from appearing in trial unless required for progress, emphasizing issues to be addressed during trial for presenting arguments on age exemption and lack of involvement in company operations.

---

---

Issues Involved:
The judgment involves challenges to complaints under Section 276 B r/w 278 B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for delayed deposit of tax deducted at source, with a focus on the age of the petitioners and their roles as principal officers.

Issue 1: Prosecution of Petitioners 2 and 3

The petitioners argued that, being above 70 years, they should not be prosecuted as per CBDT instructions. They cited relevant judgments and circulars to support their stance. However, the Income Tax Department contended that the Commissioner of Income Tax had sanctioned the prosecution based on the nature of the offence. The Court noted that the general rule exempting individuals above 70 from prosecution has exceptions, and the Commissioner's decision was valid in this case. It was emphasized that the determination of whether the petitioners were principal officers should be made during the trial, as per legal precedent.

Issue 2: Role of Petitioners as Principal Officers

The petitioners contended that there was no allegation in the complaints to show that they were principal officers of the company. They referenced a previous judgment and argued that without evidence of their roles, prosecution should not proceed. The Court referred to a Supreme Court judgment which stated that the determination of a person's responsibility under the Act should be addressed during the trial. Therefore, the Court held that this issue should be decided by the trial Court, allowing the petitioners to present their case and establish their lack of involvement in the company's business conduct.

Separate Judgment:

The Court dismissed the Criminal Original Petitions, allowing the petitioners 2 and 3, who were above 70 years, to be exempt from appearing before the trial Court unless deemed necessary by the Magistrate for the trial's progress. The decision emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioners should be addressed during the trial proceedings, where they can assert their arguments regarding age exemption and lack of involvement in the company's business operations.

---