2019 (8) TMI 1064 - HC - Income Tax

Liability of directors of private company u/s 179 - Tax due to the Company to be recovered from its Directors - the petitioner had made a detailed representation contending that such recovery cannot be attributed to his gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty - attaching the petitioner's bank accounts for recoveries - HELD THAT - It is an agreed position between the parties that the issue arising in this petition is identical to one arising in the case of Mr.Vanraj Shah 2019 (7) TMI 31 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT i.e. the other Director of the Company wherein it was held that without recalling the earlier order, his action to dispose of the petitioner's objections would amount to nothing more than post-decisional consideration . Therefore, for the reasons indicated in the order dated 24 June 2019, the order dated 18 September 2018 and corrigendum thereto dated 8 March 2019 issued by Respondent No.1- Dy. CIT are set aside. Consequently, the attachment of Petitioner s bank accounts is also set aside. We have not examined the merits of the case. Therefore, nothing stated in this order, will prevent the Revenue from passing a fresh order in accordance with law after issuing fresh notice to the petitioner.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to order under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The petition challenged the order dated 18 September 2018 and the corrigendum dated 8 March 2019 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The petitioner, along with another director, was assessed for an amount of ?82.32 crore for the assessment year 2015-16. Despite pending appeals, the Deputy Commissioner issued a notice calling upon the directors to pay the tax dues of the company. The petitioner responded, stating that there was no evidence to suggest that the tax dues could not be recovered from the company.

Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner passed an order holding the directors liable to pay the outstanding dues. However, a corrigendum was issued on 8 March 2019 disposing of the petitioner's objections. Another director of the company had filed a writ petition challenging the same order, which was set aside by the court on 24 June 2019, along with the attachment of bank accounts. The court noted that the issue in the present petition was identical to the previous case and set aside the order against the petitioner as well.

The court clarified that they did not examine the merits of the case and allowed the Revenue to pass a fresh order after issuing a new notice to the petitioner. Finally, the writ petition was disposed of with the orders dated 18 September 2018 and 8 March 2019 being set aside, along with the attachment of the petitioner's bank accounts.