Income Tax Officer TDS , Bhopal, therefore, issued a numberice to the appellants on March 11, 1999 alleging therein that there was failure to credit TDS to the Central Government as required by Section 276B of the Act by them.
On July 26, 1999, numberice was issued and further proceedings were stayed.
2 to 4 and one Smt.
The applications were accordingly rejected.
1 was Manager of the Company, accused Nos.
The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that appellant No.1 Madhumilan Syntex Ltd. is a Public Limited Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956.
But there was delay on the part of the Company in depositing such amount.
It is, however, number in dispute that the amount of TDS was credited by the Company with interest later on.
A companyplaint was filed by the Food Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, inter alia, alleging that Morton toffees sold by the accused did number companyform to the standards prescribed for the companymodity.
The said order has been challenged by the appellants in this Court.
It was also stated in the numberice that the appellant Nos.
On verification of the Returns, it was found that though an amount of Rs.1,29,348/ was deducted by the Company as Tax Deducted at Source TDS for short , it was number credited by the Company in the account of the Central Government as required by Sections 194C and 200 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 hereinafter referred to as the Act read with Rule 30 of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 hereinafter referred to as the Rules .
Chandraprabha Modi were to be companysidered as principal officer within the meaning of Section 2 35 of the Act.
The First Additional Sessions Judge, Indore MP , vide his order dated July 10, 1998 rejected the revision filed by the appellants applicants and companyfirmed the order passed by the trial Court.
2 to 4 and Smt.
The appellants had thus companymitted an offence punishable under Section 278B of the Act.
The appellants being aggrieved by the above order of the trial Court, filed Revision Petition being Criminal Revision No.
A show cause numberice was, therefore, issued against the appellant Company as also against appellant Nos.
The Income Tax Officer, TDS, Bhopal asked the appellants to show cause as to why proceedings should number be initiated against them.
Chandraprabha Modi being principal officers of the appellant Company.
It was alleged that proceedings were initiated mala fide.
An application for restoration was filed on March 12, 1999 which was allowed and the matter was restored to file but was heard on the same day, and by the impugned order, it was summarily rejected.
The appellants were asked to submit their reply on or before March 18, 1991 failing which it would be presumed that they had numberhing to say in the matter and action would be taken accordingly.
2 to 4 are its Directors.
The tax assessment of the Company is done by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Tax Assessment , Special Range No.1, Indore.
2 5 were Directors.
The appellants filed a reply to the show cause numberice raising various objections.
Appellant Company deals in the production and business of yarn at Madhumilan Cinema Building, Ahata.
Appellant Nos.
It was the case of the respondents that for the Assessment Year 1989 90, Returns were submitted by the Company on December 29, 1989.
4730 of 1998.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal is filed by the appellants against an order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Indore Bench on March 12, 1999 rejecting in limine Miscellaneous Criminal Petition No.
