Suvendra Kumar Panda v. The Income Tax Officer,Corporate Ward 6(2),Room

.IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. RAMESH Suvendra Kumar Panda..Petitioner -Vs- The Income Tax Officer,Corporate Ward 6(2),Room No.707, Wanaparthy Block,7[th] Floor, 121 MG Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034. ..Respondent PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution ofIndia, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus,calling for the records of the respondent contained in itsnotice No.CHE/CORPWARD-6(2)/2018-19 DATED 13.11.2018, forassessment year 2011-12 and all proceedings in furtherancethereof, including but not limited to the order under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for PAN; , dated26.11.2018, passed by the respondent treating the petitioner asthe Principal Officer of M/s.Shiva Perumal Technologies Pvt.Ltd., and to quash the same as arbitrary, illegal and withoutjurisdiction and to consequently, forbear the respondent from inany manner treating the petitioner as the Principal Officer ofM/s.Shiva Perumal Technologies Pvt. Ltd. For Petitioner : Mr.Arun Karthik Mohan for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy O R D E RWith the consent of both parties, the Writ Petition is takenup today and heard through video conferencing. 2. To the notice dated 13.11.2018, proposing to treat thepetitioner herein as a Principal Officer as defined underSection 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the petitionerherein, who had acted as a Director of the Company for a shortperiod between 01.04.2010 and 14.10.2010, gave a reply on https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 14.11.2018 disclosing that he was no more the Director of theCompany and also enclosing the master data of the Company inwhich he had served as a Director, which also discloses thedetails of the acting Directors. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance onthe decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Andhra PradeshHigh Court reported in 1977 (106) ITR 119 in the case of IncomeTax Officer, A-Ward, Nellore Circle, Nellore V. OfficialLiquidator and submitted that the purpose of treating a personconnected with the management or administration of the Companyas a Principal Officer is only to protect the interests of therevenue by compelling the person who is in a position to prepareand submit a return on behalf of the Company. Such being theintention of the Parliament, the present impugned order dated26.11.2018, treating the petitioner, who is a retired Director,as a Principal Officer is unwarranted. 4. I do not intend to lay down any proposition with regardto the right of the department to treat a retired Director of aCompany as a Principal Officer. Nevertheless, this Court is ofthe view that when there were acting Directors of the Company,who are said to be still continuing as the Directors of theCompany, the department could have proceeded against any one ofsuch acting Directors for the reassessment proceedings and couldhave treated any one of them as the Principal Officer. Thepetitioner claims that he is in possession of the details of theacting Directors during the relevant Assessment Year. If suchdetails are directed to be furnished to the respondentdepartment and thereafter a decision could be taken, it would bemore appropriate and convenient for the further assessmentproceedings. I am inclined to take this view since effectiveproceedings may not be possible with the petitioner as thePrincipal Officer, who had acted for a very short period as aDirector and had retired thereafter. 5. In this background, the impugned order dated 26.11.2018,treating the petitioner namely, Suvendra Kumar Panda as aPrincipal Officer is set aside. Consequently, the petitioner isdirected to furnish the details of the acting Directors of theCompany during the Financial Year 2011-2012 to the respondentherein, by way of a reply to the respondent's proposal dated13.11.2018, atleast within a period of 15 days from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. The respondent is at libertyto proceed against any one of the acting Directors for treatingthem as a Principal Officer, as contemplated under Section 2(35)(b) of the Income Tax Act,1961. 6. With the above directions, the Writ Petition standsdisposed of. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitionsare closed. No costs. -s/d- Assistant Registrar True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar DPToThe Income Tax Officer,Corporate Ward 6(2),Room No.707, Wanaparthy Block,7[th] Floor, 121 MG Road,Nungambakkam,Chennai-600 034. +1 CC to Mr. Arun Karthik Mohan, Advocate sr 30573.+1 CC to Mr.A.P.Srinivas, Advocate sr 30223. W.P.No.33790 of 2018andW.M.P.Nos.39236, 39240& 39243 of 2018VGI(CO)SP(19/10/2020)