Penalty for late efilling of form 23ac
This query is : Resolved
Querist : Anonymous
Querist :
Anonymous
(Querist)
22 November 2012
What is the Penalty of Late e-filling of Form No. 23AC..???
22 November 2012
Hi
You will pay additional fee for filing Form-23AC.
Penalty for non-compliance of section 220
If default is made in complying with section 220(1) and (2), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the default continues. [Section 220(3)]
It has been held in the case of Ravindra Narayan v Registrar of Companies (1994) 2 SCL 281 (Raj), that where there is a managing director of company, other directors cannot be held to be falling within the expression 'officer who is in default' in section 5 and cannot be held liable for default in complying with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 220.
Where directors failed to file balance sheet and profit and loss accounts despite notice, it was decided that any director of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default would be an 'officer in default' under section 5 read with section 2(30). [Bachrenj Baid v State of West Bengal Case No. 809 (Kol) 92].
In the case of Alim Ahuja and Another v Registrar of Companies (2006) 129 Comp Cas 104 (Raj), the Registrar of Companies sent notices to the directors calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for their prosecution for contravention of section 159/160/162/220 and as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 210(5) of the Act, for the default in complying with section 210(3) of the Act. On receipt of these notices, the petitioners filed application to High Court for grant of relief under section 633 of the Act instead of showing cause to the ROC praying that they were not active directors of the company and are being not connected with the management of the company.
The Court held that that the plaintiffs have voluntarily continued as directors of the company. The Board of Directors has never resolved to exempt them from their responsibility and duty as directors to comply with the provisions of the Act. It is hardly of any substance that petitioners are senior citizens. They had accepted the directorship voluntarily and presumed to have known of their responsibility, obligation, liability and duty under the Act.
It was further held that rather than approach to this Court at this stage they should have placed their cases for consideration before the respondent but that has not been done. That apart the notices have been given only for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and in their prosecution they can take all these defences and where they are able to prove the same the Court may not punish them for violation of provisions of the Act.
You will pay additional fee for filing Form-23AC.
Penalty for non-compliance of section 220
If default is made in complying with section 220(1) and (2), the company, and every officer of the company who is in default, shall be punishable with fine, which may extend to five hundred rupees for every day during which the default continues. [Section 220(3)]
It has been held in the case of Ravindra Narayan v Registrar of Companies (1994) 2 SCL 281 (Raj), that where there is a managing director of company, other directors cannot be held to be falling within the expression 'officer who is in default' in section 5 and cannot be held liable for default in complying with requirements of sub-sections (1) and (2) of section 220.
Where directors failed to file balance sheet and profit and loss accounts despite notice, it was decided that any director of the company who is knowingly guilty of the default would be an 'officer in default' under section 5 read with section 2(30). [Bachrenj Baid v State of West Bengal Case No. 809 (Kol) 92].
In the case of Alim Ahuja and Another v Registrar of Companies (2006) 129 Comp Cas 104 (Raj), the Registrar of Companies sent notices to the directors calling upon them to show cause as to why action should not be taken for their prosecution for contravention of section 159/160/162/220 and as to why they should not be prosecuted under Section 210(5) of the Act, for the default in complying with section 210(3) of the Act. On receipt of these notices, the petitioners filed application to High Court for grant of relief under section 633 of the Act instead of showing cause to the ROC praying that they were not active directors of the company and are being not connected with the management of the company.
The Court held that that the plaintiffs have voluntarily continued as directors of the company. The Board of Directors has never resolved to exempt them from their responsibility and duty as directors to comply with the provisions of the Act. It is hardly of any substance that petitioners are senior citizens. They had accepted the directorship voluntarily and presumed to have known of their responsibility, obligation, liability and duty under the Act.
It was further held that rather than approach to this Court at this stage they should have placed their cases for consideration before the respondent but that has not been done. That apart the notices have been given only for launching the prosecution against the petitioners and in their prosecution they can take all these defences and where they are able to prove the same the Court may not punish them for violation of provisions of the Act.
22 November 2012
Default in filing Balance sheet and profit and loss account is a compoundable offence
Default of section 220 of the Act is compoundable under section 621A of the Act. But first the default should be made good and only then application for compounding of offence under section 621A will be maintainable. [General Produce Company Ltd. (1994) 4 Comp LJ 99 (CLB)]
Default in filing Balance sheet and profit and loss account is a compoundable offence
Default of section 220 of the Act is compoundable under section 621A of the Act. But first the default should be made good and only then application for compounding of offence under section 621A will be maintainable. [General Produce Company Ltd. (1994) 4 Comp LJ 99 (CLB)]
You need to be the querist or approved CAclub expert to take part in this query .
Click here to login now
Click here to login now
Similar Resolved Queries
Unanswered Queries
- ITR filing- non tax audit cases- Asstt.Year 2026-2027
- Soyabean hsn code and gst rate
- Treatment of Pension ?annuity returns on PMVY
- NON- SUBMISSION OF LLP FORM 3
- Last year TDS Claim
- Long Term Service award taxability in hands of company
- AY 26-27 ITR-4 FILING U/S 44-ADA
- Plot of land. Cost of Acquisition
- Free lancer income
- TDS related Query_Liquidated Damages
- Form 27Q Correction statement taking too long to update on IT Portal
- ITR selection for salaries and capital gain less than L
- Showing Gift from relative in ITR for this year
- Gst invoice numbering and delivery challan numbering
- Standard Deduction claim for EPFO Pension and ICICI Prudential Life Annuity
- Small dealers gst returns filing
- Sales amount in Gstr1
- CG after sale of flat
- E Commerce GSTR1 & 3B how to file
- GST Cancellation without jurisdiction
Trending Online Classes
-
DT & Audit (Exam Oriented Fastrack Batch) - For May 26 Exams and onwards Full English
CA Bhanwar Borana & CA Shubham Keswani
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals
CAclubindia
