Back
K. R. SHRIRAM, M. M. SATHAYE
Prakash B. Kamat – Appellant
Versus
Principal Commissioner of Income-tax – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
M.M.Sathaye, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Learned Counsel Mr. Sureshkumar waives service for Respondents. Taken up for final disposal with consent.
2. By this Petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner is seeking a writ of Certiorari for quashing and setting aside (a) order dated 22nd December 2017 passed by Income Tax Officer-10(1)(3), Mumbai under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) holding Petitioner liable for taxes allegedly due from Company Kaizen Automation Pvt. Ltd. (“KAPL” for short) for Assesment Year 2008-09 & 2009-10 and (b) Order dated 18th March 2019 passed by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD) holding charge of Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-10, Mumbai, under Section 264 of the Act in Petitioner’s revision against aforesaid order dated 22nd December 2017. Petitioner is also seeking a writ of mandamus directing Respondents to withdraw, revoke and cancel the said impugned orders.
3. Heard Mr. Mistry, learned senior counsel for Petitioner and Mr. Suresh Kumar for Respondents - Revenue. Perused the record.
CASE
4. Petitioner has come with following case :
Directors of a private company cannot be held liable for the company's tax dues if they prove that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty on their ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the burden of proof on a director to establish lack of gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty in relation to the affairs of the company t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Assessing Officer must disclose the necessary jurisdictional facts and the steps taken to recover tax dues from the delinquent company in ....
Directors can only be liable for tax dues if the company has no recoverable assets and negligence is proven; procedural fairness in claims against past Directors is essential.
Directors are not personally liable for a company's tax dues unless proven negligent; recovery against a deceased director is unsustainable.
The burden of proof lies on the director to show non-recovery of tax dues was not due to gross neglect, misfeasance, or breach of duty, as per Section 179(1) of the Income Tax Act.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for proper evidence and adherence to principles of natural justice in proceedings under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, as we....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
