2015 (3) TMI 486 - AT - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - CIT(A) confirmed the penalty - maintainability of appeal filed by appellant Shri R.Subba Rao former Managing Director of the said company in his individual capacity against the order of the learned CIT(A) passed in the case/name of the Company - Held that - The term assessee aggrieved used in S.253(1) being a person competent to file an appeal before the Tribunal is only the person who is an aggrieved party liable to pay tax in terms of the order against which the appeal is to be preferred. As discussed there is no tax payable by the appellant in the present case as a result of the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) and consequently he cannot treated as an aggrieved party . We therefore hold that the appellant is not entitled to file the present appeal against the impugned order passed by the learned CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer under S.271(1)(c) on the company and consequently the present appeal being not maintainable is liable to be dismissed in limine. We accordingly dismiss this appeal holding the same to be not maintainable. - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Maintainability of the appeal filed by the appellant in his individual capacity.
2. Definition and interpretation of the term "assessee" under Section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act.
3. Liability of directors under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act.
4. Applicability of judicial precedents cited by the appellant.
5. Interpretation of the term "assessee aggrieved" under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Maintainability of the Appeal:
The primary issue was whether the appeal filed by the appellant, the former Managing Director of M/s. Suvista Software Private Limited, in his individual capacity, was maintainable. The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable as per the provisions of Section 253 of the Income Tax Act. The appellant had filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A) confirming the penalty imposed on the company under Section 271(1)(c).

2. Definition and Interpretation of "Assessee":
The term "assessee" is defined under Section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal examined whether the appellant could be considered an "assessee" under this definition. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant could not be considered an "assessee" as he was not a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money was payable under the Act. The proceedings initiated against the appellant for prosecution under Section 276C were not proceedings for the assessment of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he was assessable.

3. Liability of Directors under Section 179:
The appellant contended that as a former director of a private company, he was jointly and severally liable for the payment of tax due by the company under Section 179. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 179 applies only to private companies in liquidation, which was not the case here. Therefore, the appellant could not be held liable for the company's penalty under Section 271(1)(c).

4. Applicability of Judicial Precedents:
The appellant cited various judicial precedents to support his contention that he should be considered an "assessee" and thus entitled to file the appeal. The Tribunal reviewed these precedents but found them inapplicable to the facts of the present case. For instance, the decision in Union of India V/s. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar was distinguished on the grounds that it dealt with a company in liquidation, unlike the present case.

5. Interpretation of "Assessee Aggrieved":
The Tribunal discussed the concept of "assessee aggrieved" under Section 253, which allows an "assessee" aggrieved by an order to appeal to the Tribunal. The Tribunal concluded that the appellant was not an "assessee aggrieved" as he was not liable to pay any tax or penalty as a result of the CIT(A)'s order. Therefore, he did not have the standing to file the appeal.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeal as not maintainable, holding that the appellant could not be considered an "assessee" under Section 2(7) or an "assessee aggrieved" under Section 253. Consequently, other issues, including the condonation of delay, became infructuous and were not adjudicated. The order was pronounced on 13th February 2015.