9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 39X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner is not an employee of HEC, Ltd. The petitioner being not the employee of HEC, never had any control over the affairs of the company including the liability of deducting tax from the employees or the contractor and 4 depositing the same with the department. The petitioner neither falls within the definition of Assessee , Principal Officer nor an Employee . He was also not part and parcel of the management of HEC. The complaint also does not specify any overt act against the petitioner nor it has a single sentence to the effect that the petitioner is responsible for any of the acts which can attract any penal consequences nor it mentions that he was responsible for the daily affairs of the company. This Court after tak ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... HEC, Ltd. It is alleged that deduction of tax was made by HEC, Ltd. from the payment of the contractors, employees and others during the financial years 1995-96, and thereafter on several occasions the accused persons have not deposited the deducted tax 2, within the stipulated period under the Income Tax Act, with the authority. A notice to that effect was issued to the accused. As per the complaint, the accused persons submitted a reply stating therein that there was a delay in remitting the TDS, as HEC was a sick organization. The explanation was rejected by the complainant and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under the Act. On this ground a complaint was filed alleging commission of offence under Sections 276-B read with Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner. 7. Offences under IPC will also not be made out, as the criminal intention can be imputed on his part in the delay in remittance of the TDS amount to HEC. 8. Lastly, learned counsel submits that, several cases of different transaction on account of delay/non-deposit of amount after tax deduction were pending before this Court and one of them, being Complaint Case No. 28 of 2001, was quashed vide order passed in Cr. M.P. No. 1570 of 2014 by this Hon'ble Court.. 9. Landed APP has opposed the quashing petition. He further submits that this petitioner being the Advisor can definitely be held vicariously liable. Counsel for the department admitted the fact that this petitioner is not an employee of HEC, but has been h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
