Allowing the petition the Court held that here being acting 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. Accordingly since effective proceedings would not be possible with petitioner as Principal Officer impugned order treating petitioner as a Principal Officer was to be set aside. (AY. 2011-12)
Suvendra Kumar Panda v. ITO (2021) 276 Taxman 171 (Mad.)(HC)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Principal officer-Director for short period-Assessee cannot be held to be Principal Officer-Notice was set aside. [S. 2(35), Art. 226]