TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2008 (3) TMI 300
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. Mr. T. R. Rahman, Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 2(1), Patna, filed a petition of complaint duly authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Patna, against M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited and its three partners who are petitioners here. It is alleged that M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited, accused No. 1, is a company and Shri Om Prakash Katyal, Shri Amit Katyal and Shri Rajesh Katyal, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its directors and are responsible for any act and day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. It is stated that M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited, accused No.1 has its registered office at New Delhi and its business premises at Patliputra Colony, Patna. It is alleged that in terms of sections 194C and 194-I of the Income....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o issue notice/summons under the impugned order dated December 2, 2006. 3. Learned lawyer for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are admittedly directors of M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited having its registered office at New Delhi. He submits that they are residents of New Delhi and in support of his contention, he has filed copies of passports, vide annexure 2 series. He submits that the factory of the company is situated at Bihta in the District of Parna and its local office is situated at 271, Patliputra Colony, Patna. He submits that the entire operation and management at Patna is conducted through the officers, employees and consultants, appointed by the company at Patna. He submits that the allegation that the petitioners....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly." 4. Learned lawyer submits that the company had appointed competent officers and consultants to deal with the company's account at Patna relating to the entire manufacturing operations of the company, sale and receipts of sale proceeds received at Patna. They were responsible for depositing the tax amount deducted at source at Patna within the due date. He submits that due to some oversight on the part of the consultant who was appointed to deal with income-tax matters, delay occurred in the deposit of the aforesaid amount of TDS but immediately after the aforesaid delay in deposit of the amount came to l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tant to deal with the company's account at Patna. He, therefore, submits that petitioners are not responsible for every act and day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. He submits that since the company came to know of the default in payment of TDS amount, the company paid the said TDS amount with interest within a short period of 20 days. He, therefore, submits that there is no mala fide intention and further there has been no consent, connivance or negligence on the part of the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are innocent and, hence, the impugned order be quashed. 6. Learned lawyer appearing on behalf of the Income-tax Department assailed the miscellaneous case on one ground that the petitioners are r....