TMI Blog2008 (3) TMI 300X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by the Presiding Officer, Special Court, Economic Offences, Patna, taking cognizance of the offence under section 276B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2. Mr. T. R. Rahman, Income-tax Officer, Ward No. 2(1), Patna, filed a petition of complaint duly authorised by the Commissioner of Income-tax-I, Patna, against M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited and its three partners who are petitioners here. It is alleged that M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited, accused No. 1, is a company and Shri Om Prakash Katyal, Shri Amit Katyal and Shri Rajesh Katyal, accused Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are its directors and are responsible for any act and day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. It is stated that M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited, accused No.1 has its reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nsideration of the complaint petition took cognizance of the offence under section 276B of the Income-tax Act against the accused persons and ordered to issue notice/summons under the impugned order dated December 2, 2006. 3. Learned lawyer for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are admittedly directors of M/s. Iceberg Industries Limited having its registered office at New Delhi. He submits that they are residents of New Delhi and in support of his contention, he has filed copies of passports, vide annexure 2 series. He submits that the factory of the company is situated at Bihta in the District of Parna and its local office is situated at 271, Patliputra Colony, Patna. He submits that the entire operation and management at Pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." 4. Learned lawyer submits that the company had appointed competent officers and consultants to deal with the company's account at Patna relating to the entire manufacturing operations of the company, sale and receipts of sale proceeds received at Patna. They were responsible for depositing the tax amount deducted at source at Patna within the due date. He submits that due to some oversight on the part of the consultant who was appointed to deal with income- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e petitioners, therefore, submits that petitioners are, of course, directors of the company and the company had appointed competent officers and consultant to deal with the company's account at Patna. He, therefore, submits that petitioners are not responsible for every act and day-to-day conduct of the business of the company. He submits that since the company came to know of the default in payment of TDS amount, the company paid the said TDS amount with interest within a short period of 20 days. He, therefore, submits that there is no mala fide intention and further there has been no consent, connivance or negligence on the part of the petitioners. He, therefore, submits that the petitioners are innocent and, hence, the impugned order be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
