9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (1) TMI 749X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2006-07 to 2011-12. 3. The only grievance of the Petitioner to the impugned order dated 31st December 2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax is that the same is without jurisdiction. This according to the Petitioner is for the reason that as in terms of Section 179 (1) of the Act, the revenue is clothed with jurisdiction to proceed against a directors of a Private Limited Company to recover its dues only where the tax dues of the Private Limited Company cannot be recovered from it. In this case it is the case of the Petitioner that no effort was made to recover the tax dues from the defaulting Private Limited Company. Further reliance is also placed upon decision of this Court in Dinesh Tailor v. Tax Recovery Officer and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annot be recovered form the company. It is only if the tax cannot be recovered from the company that every person who was a director of the company at any time during the relevant previous year becomes jointly and severally liable." (emphasis supplied.) 7. Therefore, the Revenue would acquire / get jurisdiction to proceed against the directors of the delinquent Private Limited Company only after it has failed to recover its dues from the Private Limited Company, in which the Petitioner is a director. This is a condition precedent for the Assessing Officer to exercise jurisdiction under Section 179 (1) of the Act against the director of the delinquent company. In our view the jurisdictional requirement cannot be said to be satisfied by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner pointed out that the defaulting Company had assets of over Rs. 100 Crores. Admittedly, in this case no particulars of steps taken to recover the dues from the defaulting Company were communicated to the Petitioner nor indicated in the impugned order. In this case we find that except a statement that recovery proceedings against the defaulting assessee had failed, no particulars of the same are indicated, so as to enable the Petitioner to object to it on facts. 9. In the above view, we set aside the impugned order dated 31st December 2015. This as the condition precedent to exercise jurisdiction under Section 179 (1) of the Act is not satisfied. At no time has the Petitioner been given a chance to meet the Revenue's case that it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
