https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4312 A criminal complaint under sections 276CC, 276D and 278B of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained because it lacked specific averments showing how each petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business. Mere repetition of the statutory language in section 278B was held insufficient in a prosecution based on vicarious liability; the complaint had to disclose material linking each accused to the conduct of business during the relevant assessment year. As the record attributed signing and dealings with tax authorities to another accused, the foundation against the petitioners was found inadequate. The complaint and summoning orders were quashed, and the petitioners were discharged. en-us Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Jul 2008 13:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4312 A criminal complaint under sections 276CC, 276D and 278B of the Income-tax Act could not be sustained because it lacked specific averments showing how each petitioner was in charge of and responsible for the firm's business. Mere repetition of the statutory language in section 278B was held insufficient in a prosecution based on vicarious liability; the complaint had to disclose material linking each accused to the conduct of business during the relevant assessment year. As the record attributed signing and dealings with tax authorities to another accused, the foundation against the petitioners was found inadequate. The complaint and summoning orders were quashed, and the petitioners were discharged. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=4312