9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Interpretation of liability of a director of a private company u/s 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and the validity of an order passed by the Income-tax Officer.
Interpretation of liability u/s 179(1): The judgment addressed the liability of a director of a private company u/s 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The respondent's counsel argued that the liability arises only in cases of gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty by the director. However, the court disagreed, stating that the non-recovery of tax can be attributed to the director's breach of duty in relation to the company's affairs, thus attracting the provisions of section 179(1). Validity of the Income-tax Officer's order: The respondent's counsel challenged the order passed by the Income-tax Officer on April 12, 1979, holding the respondent personally responsible for tax arrears. It was argued that the assessment for certain years was incorrect, and the respondent should not be liable for those amounts. The court agreed that the tax arrears for specific years needed reevaluation and directed the Income-tax Officer to reassess the arrears from the assessment year 1962-63 onwards after considering objections from the respondent. Enforcement of liability: The respondent's counsel highlighted the inability of the Department to recover arrears from the company's assets, pointing to a proposed auction sale. It was argued that if the Department cannot realize the arrears through the auction, the respondent should be personally liable to pay. The court accepted this submission, directing enforcement of the order personally against the respondent only if the arrears cannot be recovered through the auction. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, setting aside the previous judgment and upholding the Income-tax Officer's order subject to reassessment of arrears after considering objections. The court directed enforcement against the respondent personally only if arrears cannot be realized through the proposed auction. No costs were awarded in the circumstances of the case.
|
