9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Liability under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, issuance of recovery certificate under section 222 without a demand notice under section 156.
Analysis: The judgment by Judge D. S. Tewatia addresses two writ petitions involving common questions of facts and law. The petitioners, a father and son who were directors of a company, challenged the Income-tax Officer's order holding them liable under section 179 of the Income-tax Act for assessment years 1955-56 to 1962-63. The Supreme Court had previously upheld this liability in a related case. The petitioners contested the recovery certificate issued by the Income-tax Officer on the grounds that a demand notice under section 156 was not served on them and that the liability was not retrospective. The court noted that the issue of liability had been settled by the Supreme Court and that the retrospective nature of section 179 was already determined. Regarding the first contention, the court explained the significance of serving a demand notice under section 156 to initiate the recovery process. Failure to serve this notice could delay the filing of an appeal, keeping the tax liability in limbo. Additionally, a defaulting assessee cannot be declared as such under section 220(4) without a demand notice. However, the court highlighted that the order under section 179 is not appealable, eliminating the need for a notice under section 156 in that context. The liability under section 179 equates the person to a defaulting assessee for the purpose of section 220(4), allowing the coercive recovery process. Ultimately, the court found no merit in the petitions and dismissed them with costs. The judgment clarifies the procedural requirements for recovery under the Income-tax Act and affirms the liability imposed under section 179 on directors of a company in certain circumstances.
|
