mumbai in two separate cases of delay in tax deducted at source tds payments by best deal tv pvt ltd a company that ran a home shopping channel the ballard pier magistrates court has issued summons against three of its directors including actor shilpa shetty kundra and her husband raj kundra and the chief financial officer they will have to appear in person or submit a bail plea through a lawyer on october 20 the next date of the hearingthe accused summons issued this week said that their attendance was necessary to answer the charges under the income tax actspecial public prosecutor amit munde had told the court that while one case related to delayed payment of more than rs 888 lakh tds deducted in 201516 the second is for over rs 588 lakh tds deducted in 201617 he further submitted that there was a delay of over one year in depositing the amounts in the government treasuryafter deduction of tds instead of depositing such amount to the government account within due date the assessee retained money therefore the deductor has committed a default under sections 200 and 204 of the income tax actby failing to deposit tds without a reasonable cause or excuse to pay the tds so deducted the default amounts to an offence punishable under section 276 b failure to pay tds of act the prosecution told the court section 276 b prescribes a minimum sentence of three months rigorous imprisonment and maximum of seven years rigorous imprisonment and a finethe prosecution also told the court that the directorsthe kundras and darshit shahare responsible for paying tax hence section 278b director managers etc of a firm can be prosecuted for default was also attracted in the two casesin response to the showcause notices by the it department shetty kundra has said that since all activities related to events and business activities were undertaken by the managing director and other managerial personnel she was not aware of such tds defaults she also submitted that she had neither drawn any sitting fees nor remuneration from the companybut the prosecution told the court that no evidence in support of the claim was submitted and on further verification of records as per the annual return uploaded by the firm she had attended all board meetings and her name was entered in the remuneration details