2025 (9) TMI 37

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hing of Criminal Complaint Nos.103/SW/2013 (Criminal Application No.614/2011), 3126/SW/2013 (Criminal Application No.615/2011) and 669/SW/2013 (Criminal Application No.616/2011) seeking to prosecute the Applicant under Section 276C(2) read with 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act). 3. The applicant was a part time director of accused No.1- Company-M/s. Maegaware Computers Limited, prior to his resignation on 18 February 1992. Criminal complaint is filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate by the Complainant on the ground that accused No.1-company has defaulted in making payment of tax and since the applicant (accused No.7) is a director by invoking the provisions of Section 278B of the IT Act has been made a co- accused in the co....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....t interfere and the proceeding should be allowed before the trial Court. He further submitted that the applicant has not proved that he was not in-charge of and responsible for day- to-day activities of accused No.1. He strongly relied upon the provisions of Section 278B(2) and submitted that the present application be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant and the respondents and with their assistance have perused the documents which have been brought to my notice. At the outset, I wish to state that except what is recorded above, no other submissions were made by either of the parties. I also note that this criminal application was filed in 2011, and stay was granted on 9 December 2011, but till today no reply is fi....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s concerned . 11. Learned counsel for the applicant is also justified in relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sunita Palita (supra), wherein, although in connection with the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1981, the ingredients required for satisfaction of Section 278B(2) of the Income Tax Act and Section 138/141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are identical. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that there has to be a specific averment in the pleadings to substantiate involvement in the day to day affairs of the company or running of the business, and a mere statement that all directors are in-charge and responsible for conduct of the business of the company without anything ....