https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420101 Prosecution under Section 276B could not be sustained against the second respondent because the statutory notice needed to treat him as the company's principal officer was not shown to comply with Section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice dated 21.10.2018 merely called for an explanation on non-remittance of tax and did not establish the foundational requirement for fastening liability on him. On that basis, the Trial Court's finding that there was no prima facie material to proceed was neither illegal nor perverse, and the limited scope of revisional interference did not justify disturbance of the discharge order. en-us Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 22 Aug 2022 11:28:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420101 Prosecution under Section 276B could not be sustained against the second respondent because the statutory notice needed to treat him as the company's principal officer was not shown to comply with Section 2(35) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The notice dated 21.10.2018 merely called for an explanation on non-remittance of tax and did not establish the foundational requirement for fastening liability on him. On that basis, the Trial Court's finding that there was no prima facie material to proceed was neither illegal nor perverse, and the limited scope of revisional interference did not justify disturbance of the discharge order. Case-Laws Income Tax Mon, 07 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420101