Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

1992 (4) TMI 2

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e court was delivered by YOGESHWAR DAYAL J.- These appeals are directed against the judgment of the learned single judge of the Madras High Court dated 4th February, 1977 ([1977] 110 ITR 655), and arise in the following circumstances. The first accused, Sh. M. R. Pratap, who was the managing director of the company, Rayala Corporation P. Ltd., is the appellant in the present appeals. The respondent/complainant is the Income-tax Officer, Central Circle III, Madras. The appellant is the first accused along with the second accused. A complaint was filed before the Chief Presidency Magistrate purporting to be under sections 277 and 278 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), and sections 120B and 193 of the Indi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... f the present appeals, we are not concerned with the rest of the charges made in the complaint. The appellant herein filed a miscellaneous petition before the Magistrate as to the maintainability of the complaint against him in his capacity as the managing director. The Magistrate dismissed the miscellaneous petition by order dated November 28, 1973. Against the said order, the appellant filed a revision petition. The appellant also filed another petition being Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 4813 of 1976 under section 482 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying to quash the complaint and the proceedings in pursuance thereof. The learned single judge dismissed both the revision petitions as well as the petition under section 482 of t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nd cannot mean the assessee. It was submitted on behalf of the respondent that the word "person" occurring in section 277 means the individual who makes a declaration on oath which he believes to be false and he need not necessarily be only the assessee on whom penalty is leviable under section 271(1)(c) for concealment and that the word It person" occurring in section 276 means the individual who fails to do the acts prescribed by the statute and the word " person" occurring in section 276A means the individual who acts in a manner contrary to the statute and the expression "person" used in section 277 is not used in the sense as is defined in section 2(31) of the Act. Support in this behalf was sought from the decision of the Supreme Cour .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... osecuted or is intended to be subjected to certain obligation, the statute intends the "company and the principal officer" as mentioned in sections 204, 206 and 286 of the Act. It was thus urged that the omission of the words "principal officer" or "managing director" in section 277 is very significant and the managing director cannot at all be prosecuted in a case where the company itself is an assessee. Therefore, according to learned counsel for the appellant, the word "person" occurring in section 277 will include neither the managing director nor the principal officer nor the representative assessee and, as the definition of "person" includes only the company, the verification has to be under section 139 only by the company and the per .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... , the conclusion arrived at in that case, while dealing with section 222, cannot be availed of by the appellant in this case. Before the learned single judge, reliance was also placed on the decision of the Madras High Court in IAC of IT v. Chotabhai Javerbhai [1941] 9 ITR 604, wherein Horwill J., while dealing with section 52 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (corresponding to section 277 of the 1961 Act), has held that the word "person" in that section does not necessarily mean the assessee and that it must be given its ordinary dictionary meaning and that it includes a person duly authorised. It appears that, in view of the dictum of this court in Kapurchand's case [1969] 72 ITR 623, we are unable to accept the arguments advanced by t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l appoint or employ at the same time more than one of the following categories of managerial personnel, viz., managing director and manager. In the present case, the appellant admittedly was the managing director of the company and he was thus the principal officer thereof. Rule 12(1) of the Income-tax Rules states that the return of income shall, in the case of a company, be in Form No. 1 and be verified in the manner indicated therein. In view of section 139 read with section 140(c) of the Act the return has to be signed by the principal officer of the company. A statutory obligation is cast on the principal officer to sign the tax returns. The substitution of the words made under the new Amendment Act will not in any way alter the positi .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates