9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (5) TMI 62X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce (P.) Ltd., a company floated by his brother, Rakesh Kumar Maini. As per annexure "P-4", the petitioner resigned from directorship of the company with effect from March 31, 1993. For the assessment year 1990-91, tax and interest amounting to Rs. 5,89,990 was found due against Maini Finance (P.) Ltd. and as the authorities of the Income-tax Department could not effect recovery of the outstanding dues from the company, proceedings were initiated under section 179(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act"). Notice issued by the competent authority under section 179 of the Act was served upon the petitioner directly as well as through his employer, namely, General Manager, Punjab Roadways, Depot-I, Amritsar. This fact is reveale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment dated March 17, 1994, a revision petition filed by Rakesh Kumar Maini, ex-managing director of the defaulting company is still pending and, therefore, there is no justification to proceed against him, i.e., the petitioner. In reply, respondents Nos. 1 to 3 have pleaded that being director of the company during the year, 1991, the petitioner is jointly and severally liable to pay arrears of income-tax found due against Maini Finance (P.) Ltd. These respondents have pleaded that the order of attachment annexure "R-1" has been passed on January 18, 1996, and this order clearly shows that it is subject to rule 29 of Schedule II to the Act. The respondents have further stated that after receipt of the representation made by the peti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing because the company had filed a revision petition under section 264 of the Act against the order of assessment. The failure of the petitioner to rebut the contents of annexure "P-7" regarding service of notice as well as the averments made in paragraph 4(c) of the reply, shows that the argument of Shri Mittal regarding violation of the principles of natural justice is wholly untenable. If the petitioner had not been served with notice for proceedings under section 179(1), he could not have filed a reply to the same or made a request for keeping the demand pending till the Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar, decided the revision petition. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the argument of Shri Mittal that order annexure "P-7" ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , therefore, the mere pendency of the revision petition cannot be made a ground for issue of a direction to stop making recovery of the tax which is admittedly due against the company and payment of which is the liability of the petitioner and other directors of the company. Lastly, Shri Mittal argued that the entire salary of the petitioner has been attached and this action of the respondents is contrary to section 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Shri Sawhney pointed out that respondent No. 3 has issued clarification to respondent No. 4 to take into consideration the exempted portion of the salary while making recovery pursuant to annexure "R-2" read with annexure "P-1". In our opinion, annexure "R-2" completely negates the submission ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
