2026 (7) TMI 309

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Mumbai below Exhibit 1 in C.C. No. 690/SW/2018 ("Impugned Order") as also to the order dated 12th August, 2022 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Greater Mumbai in Criminal Revision Application No. 1208 of 2019. 2) By the Impugned Order dated 7th March, 2019, the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, by observing that prima facie case is made out against the Accused Nos. 1 to 8 under Section 276CC r/w 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the IT Act") issued process against the Accused Nos. 1 to 5. The Petitioner is Accused No.4. 3) It is the main contention of Mr. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that as per the case of the Income Tax Department, the Company-M/s. Brand Connect Communication....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ioner can apply for compounding of offences by complying with the requirements as per the said Circulars. He more particularly, relied on the Circular dated 17th October, 2024 and particularly clause No. 11 of the said circular. 5) Before considering the rival contentions, it is necessary to set out certain factual aspects. The complaint bearing C.C. No. 690/SW/2018 initiated by the Income Tax Department in the Court of Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Ballard Pier at Mumbai specifically in paragraph No. 3 states that Accused No. 1, i.e., M/s. Brand Connect Communication (India) Pvt. Ltd. has not filed its Return of Income for A.Y. 2014-15 as per the provisions of Section 139(1) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and also failed to fil....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....hat the Petitioner has been ceased to be director of the Company i.e. of the Accused No. 1 with effect from 30th December, 2013. 8) The Petitioner has also produced on record the Company Master Data report available on the website of the Company Registrar wherein the Petitioner's name is mentioned as former director and it has been specifically stated that he is ceased to be the director with effect from 30th December, 2013. Thus, it is very clear that the period during which the offence is alleged to have been committed, i.e., between 31st March, 2014 and 30th September, 2014, the Petitioner was not the director the Accused No. 1-Company. Thus, following the parameters and the guidelines set out by the Supreme Court in the case of State....