9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Summons issued against petitioners for non-compliance with income tax provisions. Petitioners claim they were not responsible for firm's affairs post-reconstitution. Interpretation of section 278B of the Income-tax Act regarding liability of partners in a reconstituted firm. Detailed Analysis: The case involved a revision petition challenging the issuance of summons against the petitioners for alleged non-compliance with income tax provisions. The petitioners contended that they were not responsible for the affairs of the firm post-reconstitution and hence, the complaint against them should be quashed. The petitioners argued that as they were not managing partners of the reconstituted firm during the relevant assessment year, they were not obligated to file the income tax return. They relied on the provisions of sections 276CC, 276D, and 278B of the Income-tax Act to support their claim. The petitioners further argued that according to the decision in Murari Lal v. ITO, criminal liability cannot be fixed on partners who were not actively involved in the affairs of the firm. They emphasized that the complaint specifically mentioned another individual, accused No. 8, who was actively participating in the firm's functioning and was responsible for the alleged defaults. The petitioners asserted that they should not be held liable based on the specific allegations in the complaint. On the other hand, the opposing counsel argued that the complaint should be read in its entirety, indicating that prosecution was sought against all partners. They cited the Supreme Court's interpretation of section 278B, which holds every person connected with the company's affairs liable for offenses committed by the company. The counsel contended that under this provision, all partners of the firm, including the petitioners, would be equally liable, regardless of their managing partner status or resignation. The court dismissed the revision petition, emphasizing that under section 278B, every person connected with the firm's affairs could be held liable for offenses committed by the firm. The court noted that the determination of whether the petitioners were connected with the firm's affairs would require further examination during the evidence recording stage. Based on the interpretation of section 278B by the Supreme Court, the court concluded that the petitioners could not evade liability solely based on the actions of another individual and that no grounds for interference were established in this case.
|
