Sumit Bharana Vs Union of India & Ors. (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that co-accused permitted to apply separately for compounding of offences committed by a Company or HUF. Accordingly, matter remitted back to decide afresh in light of CBDT circular dated 17.10.2024.
Facts- The petitioner was a director of the respondent no.5 company at the material time. He received the show cause notice dated 30.06.2016 u/s. 2(35) of the Act for the financial year (FY) 2012¬-13 and 2013-14, calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be considered as the principal officer of the respondent no.5 company and the prosecution u/s. 276B of the Act not be launched against him for defaults in depositing the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS).
The concerned Income Tax Authority passed an order dated 12.07.2016 declaring the petitioner to be the principal officer of respondent no.5 company for FY 2012-13 and 2013-14. Thereafter, the respondents initiated the proceedings for prosecuting the petitioner for default in depositing the TDS for the relevant period.
In the meanwhile, the proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) commenced in respect of respondent no.5 before NCLT. On 03.02.2019, the learned ACMM (Special Court) framed the charges u/s. 276B r.w.s. 278B and 278E of the Act against the petitioner and respondent no.5. However, thereafter the proceedings in respect of the respondent no.5 were stayed pursuant to the moratorium under the IBC. The petitioner filed an application for compounding of the offences, however the said application was rejected by the impugned order.
