| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3950 (Mad-HC) : (2021) 276 TAXMAN 0171 CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950
Article 226 Section 2(35)(b)
Where petitioner claimed that he was in possession of details of acting Directors during the relevant assessment year and since effective proceedings might not be possible with petitioner as Principal Officer, who had acted for a very short period as a Director and had retired, therefore, order treating the petitioner as a Principal Officer was set aside and consequently, petitioner was directed to furnish the details of the acting directors of company.
|
Writ - Action against the Principal Officer of company - Identifying a person who was in a position to prepare and submit a return on behalf of the Company -
Petitioner had acted as a director of the company for a short period disclosed that he was no more the Director of the Company and also enclosing the master data of the Company in which he had served as a Director, which also discloses the details of the acting Directors. Petitioner placed reliance on the decision of High Court in the case of ITO, A-Ward, Nellore Circle, Nellore v. Official Liquidator, 1977 (106) ITR 119 (AP) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0434 (AP-HC) and submitted that purpose of treating a person connected with the management or administration of Company as a Principal Officer was only to protect the interests of revenue by compelling the person who is in a position to prepare and submit a return on behalf of Company. Order treating the petitioner, who is a retired Director, as a Principal Officer was unwarranted Held: This Court is of the view that when there were acting Directors of the Company, who are said to be still continuing as the Directors of the Company, department could have proceeded against any one of such acting Directors for reassessment proceedings and could have treated any one of them as the Principal Officer. Petitioner claimed that he was in possession of the details of acting Directors during the relevant assessment year. Since effective proceedings might not be possible with petitioner as the Principal Officer, who had acted for a very short period as a Director and had retired thereafter. Order treating the petitioner as a Principal Officer was set aside and consequently, petitioner was directed to furnish the details of the acting directors of company.
Relied:ITO, A-Ward, Nellore Circle, Nellore v. Official Liquidator 1977 (106) ITR 119 (AP) : 1977 TaxPub(DT) 0434 (AP-HC)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Directions issued
A.Y. :
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
OR Try Reload the Page |