<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Board explanation duty and limitation barred prosecution; cognizance failed for non-application of mind in issuing process.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99270</link>
    <description>Section 217(3) required the board to furnish full explanations only for genuine reservations, qualifications or adverse remarks in the auditor&#039;s report, so a generic comment that internal audit needed strengthening did not attract penal liability under Section 217(5). The complaint therefore disclosed no prima facie offence. Prosecution was also time-barred because there was no prior sanction requirement, no valid basis to exclude time under Section 470(3) CrPC, and no condonation sought. The Magistrate&#039;s cognizance and summons were unsustainable because the record showed no application of mind before issuing process.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:37 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=898928" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Board explanation duty and limitation barred prosecution; cognizance failed for non-application of mind in issuing process.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99270</link>
      <description>Section 217(3) required the board to furnish full explanations only for genuine reservations, qualifications or adverse remarks in the auditor&#039;s report, so a generic comment that internal audit needed strengthening did not attract penal liability under Section 217(5). The complaint therefore disclosed no prima facie offence. Prosecution was also time-barred because there was no prior sanction requirement, no valid basis to exclude time under Section 470(3) CrPC, and no condonation sought. The Magistrate&#039;s cognizance and summons were unsustainable because the record showed no application of mind before issuing process.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Companies Law</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 29 Apr 2026 08:16:36 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=99270</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>