TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1992 (4) TMI 2
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ent/complainant is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras. The appellant is the first accused along with the second accused. A complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and sections 120B and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, relating to an offence said to have been committed during the assessment year 1965-66. According to the complaint, the first accused was the managing director of Rayala Corporation P. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the company"), and the second accused was the chief accountant of the said company. The company was an assessee under the Act. The return of income of the company for th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sion petition. The appellant also filed another petition being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4813 of 1976 under section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to quash the complaint and the proceedings in pursuance thereof. The learned single judge dismissed both the revision petitions as well as the petition under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and upheld the prosecution of the appellant. Numerous contentions were urged before the learned single judge but before this court really one contention was urged, namely, that the word "person" occurring in section 277 of the Act would relate only to an assessee and not to any person other than the assessee and, therefore, the appellant who signed the return of income on ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... do the acts prescribed by the statute and the word " person" occurring in section 276A means the individual who acts in a manner contrary to the statute and the expression "person" used in section 277 is not used in the sense as is defined in section 2(31) of the Act. Support in this behalf was sought from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kapurchand Shrimal v. TRO [1969] 72 ITR 623 (SC). In this case, it was held thus (at page 629): "We are unable to hold that the expression 'person' in sections 276, 276A and 277 is used in the sense in which it is defined in section 2(31) of the Act. For each specific act which is deemed to be an offence under those provisions, an individual who, without reasonable cause or excuse, fails to do the ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....erefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the word "person" occurring in section 277 will include neither the managing director nor the principal officer nor the representative assessee and, as the definition of "person" includes only the company, the verification has to be under section 139 only by the company and the person who signs that verification is only a signatory whereas the company is the assessee, the person who is obliged to file the verified return. He also submitted that, according to the newly introduced sections 278B and 278C (introduced on 1st October, 1975) director, in the case of a company, and a karta, in the case of a Hindu undivided family, can be prosecuted, and, therefore, by virtue of the said new a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....has held that the word "person" in that section does not necessarily mean the assessee and that it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning and that it includes a person duly authorised. It appears that, in view of the dictum of this court in Kapurchand's case [1969] 72 ITR 623, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. On the other hand, we are of the view that the appellant cannot escape on the plea that the word "person" used in section 277 refers only to an assessee but not the person who has made the verification on behalf of the said assessee. It has been found by the learned single judge that the verification of the return which was signed by the appellant was signed by him in his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... manner indicated therein. In view of section 139 read with section 140(c) of the Act the return has to be signed by the principal officer of the company. A statutory obligation is cast on the principal officer to sign the tax returns. The substitution of the words made under the new Amendment Act will not in any way alter the position with regard to the operation of the provisions of the Income-tax Act as against a managing director of a company when he has signed the return of the company in such capacity. The effect of the amended section 140(c) of the Act is that the company's return of income should be signed only by the managing director or by any director, when there is no managing director, and not by the secretary or the treasurer,....