Petitioner, CEO of assessee-company, was served with show cause notices treating him to be ‘Principal Officer’ and asking him to show cause in respect of default by company to deposit TDS for financial years 2016-17 and 2017-18. Petitioner pointed out that he was appointed as Managing Direcror  only on 2-5-2017 and had resigned from that post on 2-3-2018 and he could not be possibly held to be person responsible for financial year 2016-17 and for other year he was not connected with or in charge of accounting or financing activities pertaining to company.  Department issued a corrigendum and declared that petitioner was Principal Officer of assessee-company. On writ the Court held that merely because a person holds an office in a corporate entity, it would not be sufficient to place that individual in clause (b) of section 2(35); he must be connected with management and administration of company. Accordingly order holding petitioner as principal officer for purpose of initiation of prosecution under section 276B is   set aside and Assessing Officer is directed  to examine afresh question as to whether assessee could be said to be a person connected with management or administration of company in question. Matter remanded.