9911796707
TMI Blog1987 (4) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under section 277 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short the" Act "), read with some of the offences under the Indian Penal Code, such as sections 467, 468 and 471, for filing a return on behalf of the firm on October 1, 1971, with a false verification or at least knowing it to be false.The relevant allegations in this regard are contained in para. 6 of the complaint, annexure P-1, which reads as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ummoned, vide its order dated November 14, 1986. The petitioners impugn these proceedings and pray for the quashing of the same qua them at least in view of the non-fulfilment of the requirements of section 278B of the Income-tax Act. The relevant part of this section, i.e., sub-section (1), reads as follows: " Section 278B. (1) Where an offence under this Act has been committed by a company, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioners was either in charge of, or was responsible to, the company or the firm, for the conduct of its business and in the absence of the same, the petitioners could not be proceeded against for the offence under section 277 of the Act. On the contrary, says learned counsel, that it is the precise case of the complainant that it was only Sohan Lal, partner of the firm, who had signed and verified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioners, who never signed the above noted verification of the return nor made any statement before the Income-tax Officer or produced any account in that regard, cannot possibly be proceeded against. This is more so when there is not even an allegation to the effect that at the time of the commission of the offence, they were in charge of the affairs of the firm or were conducting its busin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
