https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794423 A former director could not be prosecuted for the company's alleged failure to file its return under the Income-tax Act where the record showed his resignation had taken effect before the statutory due date and before the default period. The court held that he was not in charge of the company when the return was required to be filed, so no offence was made out against him under the complaint invoking sections 139, 276CC, 278B and 278E. The Revenue's reliance on compounding guidelines was rejected because those guidelines presuppose commission of an offence by the applicant. The criminal process and revisional order were quashed insofar as they applied to him. en-us Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 04 Jul 2026 08:15:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794423 A former director could not be prosecuted for the company's alleged failure to file its return under the Income-tax Act where the record showed his resignation had taken effect before the statutory due date and before the default period. The court held that he was not in charge of the company when the return was required to be filed, so no offence was made out against him under the complaint invoking sections 139, 276CC, 278B and 278E. The Revenue's reliance on compounding guidelines was rejected because those guidelines presuppose commission of an offence by the applicant. The criminal process and revisional order were quashed insofar as they applied to him. Case-Laws Income Tax Wed, 01 Jul 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=794423