SONIA GOKANI, J.

1. Facts are common in both the petitions. Therefore both the petitions are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. For the purpose of this judgment, we may notice the facts as arising in Special Civil Application No.14422/2008.

2. Challenge in this petition preferred under Article 226 is made to the issuance of order under section 179 of the Income Tax Act (“the Act” hereinafter) dated 11.1.2005 as also to order passed under section 264 of the Act dated 19.3.2008.

3. The factual background necessary for adjudication is as follows :

3.1. The petitioner was a promoter/director of a public limited company named Lanzorate Finance (India) Limited which was originally incorporated as Ravit Vinimay Limited with Registrar of Companies on 19.8.1992 and obtained the certificate of commencement of business as on 17.9.1992. The company was engaged in the business of secondary market operations and project consultancy and, thereafter, started its activity of equipment leasing. The company came out with its public issue of equity shares on 18.6.1996. It is averred that the prospectus of the company provides details of the company. The petitioner resigned from the company on 31.5.2000 due to change in the management.

3.2. For the assessment year 1996-1997, amount of tax demanded from the company was to the tune of Rs.53,18,694/. In view of the petitioner being the director of the said company at the relevant point of time, a show cause notice was issued under section 179 on 17.11.2004 proposing to recover such arrears of tax from the petitioner.

3.3. Vide its reply dated 26.11.2004, it was contended by the petitioner that such notice is not maintainable as the company was a public limited company and provisions of section 179 would not be applicable. The Assessing Officer however, passed an order on 11.1.2005 holding the petitioner jointly and severally liable for such tax demand and a consequent notice was issued on 31.1.2005 to recover said amount. The petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.11542/2006 challenging the validity of such notice. The Court vide its order dated 18.7.2006 dismissed the petition on the ground that no evidence was adduced to show that the company was a public limited company and therefore, in the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Court cannot go into those factual details.

3.4. The petitioner thereafter, preferred a revision application under section 264 of the Act challenging the notice impugned. The Commissioner of Income-tax in its order dated 19.3.2008 dismissed the revision application on the ground that the assessee’s Special Civil Application before this Court was not entertained and was dismissed, therefore, his application for rectification of order under section 179 also consequently deserved to be rejected. Resultantly, the present petition challenging both the impugned orders made under section 179 and order under section 264 in the revision petition, seeking the following prayers :

“a. Direct the respondents to quash and set aside the impugned order u/s.179 dated 11.01.2005 at Annexure ’A’ to this petition and quash and set aside the impugned order u/s 264 of the Act dated 19.03.2008 at Annexure B to this petition.

b. pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, stay operation and implementation of the impugned order u/s 179 dated 11.01.2005 at Annexure-A to this petition.

c. any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice.

d. to provide for the cost of this petition.”

4. We have heard learned counsel Shri Tushar Himani for the petitioner who has fervently contended that company is a public limited company and, therefore, the very provision is not applicable. He has also pointed out various documents to substantiate his contention that the petitioner was a director of the public limited company which was incorporated from the very beginning as a public limited comp