TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... and at the request of the learned Counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner (original accused No. 8) seeks to challenge the Order dated 18 February 2014 and the Order dated 21 July 2022, whereby the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai, in Criminal Case No. 52/SW/2014 (for short, 'Criminal Case') issued the process and the fresh summons against him. He also prays to this Court to quash the Criminal Case filed by respondent No. 1 against him for the offence punishable under sections 276-B read with 278-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, 'the I.T. Act'). 4. Mr Vineet Naik, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner served as an in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ate of Haryana, (1989) 4 SCC 630; (iv) S.M.S. Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Neeta Bhalla, (2005) 8 SCC 89; (v) Pooja Ravinder Devidasani Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2014) 16 SCC 1; (vi) Sunita Palita Vs. Panchami Stone Quarry, (2022) 10 SCC 152; (vii) Lalankumar Singh Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1383; (viii) Ashoke Mal Bafna Vs. Upper India Steel Mfg. & Engg. Co. Ltd., (2018) 14 SCC 202; (ix) State of Haryana Vs. Brij Lal Mittal, (1998) 5 SCC 343; (x) Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. CBI, (2015) 4 SCC 609; (xi) Iridium India Telecom Ltd. Vs. Motorola Inc., (2011) 1 SCC 74; (xii) Maksud Saiyed Vs. State of Gujarat, (2008) 5 SCC 668; (xiii) National Sm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....under Section 2(35) of the I.T. Act to the assessee company on 16 December 2013 to nominate the principal officer. After the company nominated Jagadeesh Shetty as a principal officer, the department rejected the nomination as Mr Shetty was not a director at the time of the offence. The Department then issued another notice under Section 2(35) of the I.T. Act on 22 January 2014, granting the assessee company another opportunity to nominate the principal officer. The notice stated that if the Department did not receive a reply, it would treat all thirteen directors of the company as principal officers and initiate appropriate action without further intimation. 8. The learned Counsel further argued that before filing the complaint, the Depa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n liable to any punishment if he proves that the offence was committed without his knowledge or that he had exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of such offence. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (1), where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company and it is proved that the offence has been committed with the consent or connivance of, or is attributable to any neglect on the part of, any director, manager, secretary or other officer of the company, such director, manager, secretary or other officer shall also be deemed to be guilty of that offence and shall be liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly. (3) Where an offence under this Act has been committed b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... intention of treating him as the principal officer thereof. 12. In order to treat a person as a 'Principal Officer' as defined under section 2(35)(b) of the I.T. Act, the following conditions must be satisfied: (i) he must be a person connected with the management or administration of the company, and (ii) the Assessing Officer must have served upon him a notice of his intention of treating him as the principal officer of the company. 13. In M.R. Pratap v. V.M. Muthuramalingam, 1983 SCC OnLine Mad 272, the Madras High Court held that under section 2(35) of the I.T. Act, any person connected with the company not being the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent, cannot be treated as a principal officer of the company ....