Suvendra Kumar Panda v. The Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai
[Citation -2020-LL-0916-82]

Citation 2020-LL-0916-82
Appellant Name Suvendra Kumar Panda
Respondent Name The Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 16/09/2020
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags reassessment proceedings • principal officer
Bot Summary: To the notice dated 13.11.2018, proposing to treat the petitioner herein as a Principal Officer as defined under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitioner herein, who had acted as a Director of the Company for a short period between 01.04.2010 and 14.10.2010, gave a reply on 14.11.2018 disclosing 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. Such being the intention of the Parliament, the present impugned order dated 26.11.2018, treating the petitioner, who is a retired Director, as a Principal Officer is unwarranted. I do not intend to lay down any proposition with regard to the right of the department to treat a retired Director of a Company as a Principal Officer. 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, the department could have proceeded against any one of such acting Directors for the reassessment proceedings and could have treated any one of them as the Principal Officer. The petitioner claims that he is in possession of the details of the acting Directors during the relevant Assessment Year. The petitioner is directed to furnish the details of the acting Directors of the Company during the Financial Year 2011-2012 to the respondent herein, by way of a reply to the respondent's proposal dated 13.11.2018, atleast within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is at liberty to proceed against any one of the acting Directors for treating them as a Principal Officer, as contemplated under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961.


W.P.No.33790 of 2018 .IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16.09.2020 CORAM HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH W.P.No.33790 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.39236, 39240 & 39243 of 2018 Suvendra Kumar Panda ..Petitioner -Vs- Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(2), Room No.707, Wanaparthy Block, 7th Floor, 121 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. ..Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, praying to issue Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for records of respondent contained in its notice No.CHE/CORPWARD- 6(2)/2018-19 DATED 13.11.2018, for assessment year 2011-12 and all proceedings in furtherance thereof, including but not limited to order under Section 2(35)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, for PAN; AAICS5971M, dated 26.11.2018, passed by respondent treating petitioner as Principal Officer of M/s.Shiva Perumal Technologies Pvt. Ltd., and to quash same as arbitrary, illegal and without jurisdiction and to consequently, forbear respondent from in any manner treating petitioner as Principal Officer of M/s.Shiva Perumal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Standing counsel ORDER 1 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.33790 of 2018 With consent of both parties, Writ Petition is taken up today and heard through video conferencing. 2. To notice dated 13.11.2018, proposing to treat petitioner herein as Principal Officer as defined under Section 2(35)(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961, petitioner herein, who had acted as Director of Company for short period between 01.04.2010 and 14.10.2010, gave reply on 14.11.2018 disclosing that he was no more Director of Company and also enclosing master data of Company in which he had served as Director, which also discloses details of acting Directors. 3. learned counsel for petitioner placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Division Bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in 1977 (106) ITR 119 in case of Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Nellore Circle, Nellore V. Official Liquidator and submitted that purpose of treating person connected with management or administration of Company as Principal Officer is only to protect interests of revenue by compelling person who is in position to prepare and submit return on 2 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.33790 of 2018 behalf of Company. Such being intention of Parliament, present impugned order dated 26.11.2018, treating petitioner, who is retired Director, as Principal Officer is unwarranted. 4. I do not intend to lay down any proposition with regard to right of department to treat retired Director of Company as Principal Officer. Nevertheless, this Court is of view that when there were acting Directors of Company, who are said to be still continuing as Directors of Company, department could have proceeded against any one of such acting Directors for reassessment proceedings and could have treated any one of them as Principal Officer. petitioner claims that he is in possession of details of acting Directors during relevant Assessment Year. If such details are directed to be furnished to respondent department and thereafter decision could be taken, it would be more appropriate and convenient for further assessment proceedings. I am inclined to take this view since effective proceedings may not be possible with petitioner as Principal Officer, who had acted for very short period as Director and had retired thereafter. 3 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.33790 of 2018 5. In this background, impugned order dated 26.11.2018, treating petitioner namely, Suvendra Kumar Panda as Principal Officer is set aside. Consequently, petitioner is directed to furnish details of acting Directors of Company during Financial Year 2011-2012 to respondent herein, by way of reply to respondent's proposal dated 13.11.2018, atleast within period of 15 days from date of receipt of copy of this order. respondent is at liberty to proceed against any one of acting Directors for treating them as Principal Officer, as contemplated under Section 2(35)(b) of Income Tax Act,1961. 6. With above directions, Writ Petition stands disposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. No costs. 16.09.2020 Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No DP 4 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.33790 of 2018 To Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(2), Room No.707, Wanaparthy Block, 7th Floor, 121 MG Road, Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 034. 5 http://www.judis.nic.in W.P.No.33790 of 2018 M.S.RAMESH.J., DP W.P.No.33790 of 2018 and W.M.P.Nos.39236, 39240 & 39243 of 2018 16.09.2020 6 http://www.judis.nic.in Suvendra Kumar Panda v. Income-tax Officer, Corporate Ward 6(2), Chennai
Report Error