TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (12) TMI 988
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....l 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 independent, non-executive, and nominee directo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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 Small Industries Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Harmeet Singh Paintal, (2010) 3 SCC 330; (xiv) Pepsi Foods Ltd. Vs. Special Judicial Magistrate, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he 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 Department followed all necessary procedures, and accordingly, sanction was granted by the CIT (TDS). The petitioner, a non-executive independent director of the company, regularly attended the meetings of the Board....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....section (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 by a person, being a company, and the punishment for such offence is imprisonment and fine, then, without prejudice to the provisions contained in sub-section (1) or subsection (2), such company shall be punished with fine and every person,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion 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 unless the ITO has served a notice as required under clause (b) of the section. In that case, admittedly, the Department did not serve the petitioner therein, who was a managing director, with a notice treating him as a principal officer; thus, he could not be held liable under section 276B of the....