TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 818
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for Respondent No. 3). ORAL ORDER The petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: i. Quash the proceedings in C.C No. 29/2015 pending on the file of Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru (Annexure - K) in so far as the Petitioner is concerned, by issuing the Writ of Certiorari or any other writ or an order in the nature of writ. ii. Direct the 3rd Respondent to act on the representation dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure - S) made by the Petitioner by issuing a Writ of Mandamus or any other writ or an order in the nature of writ. iii. Direct the Respondent No. 2 to reassess the Respondent No. 3 Company for the Financial year 2010-11, as envisaged under the Income Tax Act, by issuing a writ of Mandamus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he respondent No. 3 prepared various statements and returns under the I.T Act including the TDS. The petitioner contends that the approximate TDS in respect of the lease rentals payable by the respondent No. 3 was in the range of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 15,00,000/- per quarter. However, while preparing the statement of TDS for the quarter April to June 2010, the Accounts Officer inadvertently and erroneously arrived at an amount of Rs. 1,22,79,579/ as the TDS amount for the said quarter. The petitioner contends that this was a bona fide error and was not noticed by any one and due to this mistake, the total TDS liability for the said quarter rose to Rs. 2,84,81,060/-. The petitioner contends that he is not able to precisely state the liabili....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessment orders based on such error and that it was necessary to challenge the said orders before the Appellate Authority. He contends that despite his earnest request, the Official Liquidator did not take any steps. The petitioner being the former Managing Director of the respondent No. 3 apprehending punitive consequences, challenged the assessment orders in an appeal in ITA No. 339/TDS/CIT(A)-V/2012-13 before the respondent No. 1/Appellate Authority. Even after the appeal was filed, the petitioner pursued the Official Liquidator to continue and prosecute the appeal. However, the Official Liquidator did not take any steps. Consequently, the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 was dismissed for non-prosecution in terms of an order dated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ort, 'the Tribunal') challenging the order dated 20.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 dismissing the appeal filed by the respondent No. 3 for non-prosecution. The Tribunal in terms of the order dated 05.09.2018 after hearing the petitioner herein, dismissed the appeal in limine on the ground that the petitioner being a former Director of the respondent No. 3 - Company had become functus officio and had no locus standi to file the appeal in the light of the fact that the respondent No. 3 - Company was ordered to be wound up in terms of the order passed by this Court dated 08.10.2012 in Co.P No. 30/2012 and connected cases and an Official Liquidator being appointed by the said order to take over possession of documents and records of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....icial Liquidator to act on the representation of the petitioner dated 20.09.2018 and take appropriate steps to challenge the orders of assessment passed by the respondent No. 2 and to issue a direction to the respondent No. 2 to reassess the respondent No. 3 - Company for the financial year 2010-11 by taking note of the error committed in declaring the TDS for the quarter April to June 2010. 8. The learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 4 on the other hand contended that the petitioner having unsuccessfully availed the remedy of an appeal before the Appellate Authority and Tribunal, cannot assail the proceedings initiated against him for the offence punishable under Section 276B read with Section 278B of the I.T Act. He contend....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 and establish that the assessment orders were based on an erroneous mistake committed by the Company while declaring the TDS. Therefore, the petitioner having availed the remedy of an appeal was bound to follow it up by challenging the same before this Court under Section 260A of the I.T Act. So long as an assessment order is in force, the Income Tax Department is entitled to initiate steps to recover the tax and penalty. However, the Official Liquidator on coming to know of the proceedings, must have taken steps to consider the request of the petitioner and not doing so, has resulted in a catch-22 situation for the petitioner in as much as his appeal before the Tribunal is dismissed in limine on the ground of want of locus standi and on ....