9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (4) TMI 646X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1961 (the Act). The Assessment Year involved is Assessment Year 2011-12. 3. The petitioner is a former Director of M/s. Shravan Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Private Limited Company), having resigned in the year 2013. The Private Limited Company has failed to honour its tax obligation for Assessment Year 2011-12. Thus becoming a delinquent Private Limited Company. In the above view, the petitioner received a show cause notice dated 6th February, 2017 under Section 179(1) of the Act seeking to recover the tax dues of Rs. 4.69 crores of the delinquent Private Limited Company from the petitioner as its Director. The petitioner responded to the same and sought details of the notices issued to the delinquent Private Limited Company. However, with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vate Limited Company and the failure to so recover. For all the aforesaid reasons, it is submitted that the petition should be dismissed. 4. In so far as the first submission on behalf of the Revenue is concerned, the Act itself makes no distinction/classification between professional/paid Directors and Directors holding a large shareholding stake in the delinquent Private Limited Company. Section 179(1) of the Act only gives jurisdiction to the Assessing Officer to proceed against a Director of a delinquent company when the Assessing Officer is unable to recover the dues of the delinquent Company from it. It is not, therefore, open for the Assessing Officer to read conditions into Section 179(1) of the Act and jettison the strict rule of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i Kerkar (supra), we have observed as under :- "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 a mere statement in the impugned order that the recovery proceedings had been conducted against the defaulting Private Limited Company but it had failed to recover its dues. The above statement should be suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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." Thus, giving of particulars in the impugned order or in the Affidavit-in-reply does not meet with the requirement of proper notice to the noticee. 6. In view of the above, it is clear that before the Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction efforts to recover the tax dues from the delinquent Private Limited Company should have failed. This effort and failure of recovery of the tax dues must find mention in the show cause notice howsoever briefly. This would give an opportunity to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
