TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 432
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Act, 1961. 2. The complaint against the petitioner is as follows: M/s Andhra Hospitals Eluru Private Limited, a company incorporated under the Companies Act, had deducted a sum of Rs. 41,49,161/- as tax deduction at source for the assessment year 2017-18. However, this amount was not credited to the Central Government Account within the stipulated time. 3. Section 276B of the Income Tax Act reads as follows: "276B. Failure to pay tax to the credit of Central government under Chapter XIID or XVIIB.-If a person fails to pay to the credit of the Central Government,--- (a) the tax deducted at source by him as required by or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB; or (b) the tax payable by him, as required by o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cers of the Company are deemed to be guilty and liable for punishment, under the Income Tax Act, Section 278B, in the following circumstances only: "278B. Offences by companies.- (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, every person who, at the time the offence was committed, was in charge of, and was responsible to, the company for the conduct of the business of the company as well as the company shall be deemed to be guilty of the offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall render any such person liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... sons or a body of individuals, means any member controlling the affairs thereof. In view of the above provision, only those persons, who, at the time the offence was committed, were in charge of and responsible to the company for the conduct of the business of the company, would be deemed to be guilty of the offence. This would mean that any complaint filed against any officer of the company would require a statement as to how such officer of the company was in charge or responsible for the conduct of the business of the company. Similarly, where the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance or is attributable to any neglect on the part of a Director, the said Director would be liable to be proceeded against. This would ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 10. In that case, one of the Ex-Directors against whom a complaint had been filed under Section 138 r/w 141 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, before the trial Court had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi with the plea that she had resigned as a Director of the Company even before the issuance of the cheque and had produced Form-32 (which is equivalent to DIR-12 Form under the 2013 Act) to contend that she was not a Director at the time when the cheque was issued. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had refused to look into the said Form 32 on various grounds. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the Form-32 produced by the petitioner and had held that such a document was sufficient for the High Court to give relief to the petitioner....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e conduct of the business of the company. (iii) Vicarious liability can be inferred against a company registered or incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 only if the requisite statements, which are required to be averred in the complaint/petition, are made so as to make the accused therein vicariously liable for offence committed by the company along with averments in the petition containing that the accused were in charge of and responsible for the business of the company and by virtue of their position they are liable to be proceeded with. (iv) Vicarious liability on the part of a person must be pleaded and proved and not inferred. (v) If the accused is a Managing Director or a Joint Managing Director then ....