9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
1. Whether the petitioner can be held personally liable for the company's tax arrears under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Whether the order under section 179 and the subsequent attachments made by the Tax Recovery Officer are valid. Analysis: Issue 1: The petitioner, a director of a private limited company involved in construction and sale of flats, was served with a notice under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, to show cause for the recovery of the company's tax arrears. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) held the petitioner personally liable for the tax amount, disregarding the company's contention that profits for a builder cannot be determined based on work-in-progress. The ITO's decision was based on the existence of a valid demand pending for years and the rejection of the company's appeals up to the Tribunal. However, the petitioner argued that the tax liability could not be imposed retroactively under section 179, as clarified in a previous judgment. The petitioner also contended that the ITO failed to consider whether the non-recovery was due to neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on the petitioner's part. The court held that the order under section 179 was invalid as it did not address these crucial aspects, thereby ruling in favor of the petitioner. Issue 2: The petitioner challenged the order under section 179 and the subsequent attachments made by the Tax Recovery Officer. The court upheld the petitioner's submission based on a previous judgment that clarified the limitations of section 179 regarding retroactive tax liability. Additionally, the court found that the ITO failed to consider whether the non-recovery of taxes could be attributed to the petitioner's negligence, misfeasance, or breach of duty, as claimed by the company. As a result, the court declared the order under section 179 and the attachments made pursuant to it as invalid. The petition was granted in favor of the petitioner with costs, emphasizing the importance of addressing all relevant factors before holding a director personally liable for a company's tax arrears.
|
