SHITAL N SHAH Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petitions Nos. 10575 of 1986, 10577 of 1986 and 10579 of 1986 are the same. These petitioners are accused Nos. 2 to 7 in C. C. Nos. 968 of 1986, 969 of 1986 and 1970 of 1986, pending on the file of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (E. O. II), Egmore, Madras. The first four petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 are petitioners Nos. 1 to 4 in the other three petitions. The fifth petitioner in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 is not concerned with the other calendar cases. The petitioners in Criminal Miscellaneous Petition No. 10581 of 1986 are the accused in C. C. No. 1971 of 1986 pending on the file of the same magistrate.

(2.) THE petitioners in each one of these petitions are being prosecuted at the instance of the respondent who is the ITO, for the alleged commission of offences punishable under S. 276B r/w s. 278B of the IT Act, 1961. The allegation against them is that they had failed to deduct and remit the tax deducted at source under S. 194A of the IT Act and credit the same to the Government of India within the time prescribed under the rules. These four prosecutions have been initiated for different assessment years.

(3.) COUNTERING the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Ramaswami K., appearing on behalf of the ITO in all these petitioners, contended that paragraph 7 of the complaint specifically avers that the petitioners who were partners of the firm at the material time were in charge of and responsible to the firm for the conduct of the business of the firm and, therefore, were equally punishable for the offences under S. 276B r/w S. 278B of the IT Act. He further contended that the actual responsibility exercised by each one of the partners would relate to the stage of evidence and the complaint need not contain such details and, therefore, it will not be open, in the exercise of inherent powers, to quash the pending proceedings without affording an opportunity to the prosecution to let in evidence about the individual liability of each one of the partners of the firm.