Back
N. V. ANJARIA, BHARGAV D. KARIA
DEVENDRA BABULAL JAIN – Appellant
Versus
INCOME TAX OFFICER – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Jaimin Dave for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Nikunt Raval for the respondents.
2. The petitioners have challenged the order dated 24.01.2017 passed by respondent no. 1 under section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) fastening the liability upon the petitioners to pay the outstanding dues of M/s. G.P. Shah Investment (herein-after referred to as “the said company”) as the petitioners are the Directors of the said company for the Assessment Year 2013-2014.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were appointed as the Directors of M/s. G.P. Shah Investment Private Limited.
3.1 Respondent no. 1 carried out assessment under section 143(3) of the Act against the said company for the Assessment Year 2013-2014 and passed the assessment order dated 21.03.2016 resulting into additional demand of Rs. 5,51,56,520/-. Consequently demand notice dated 21.03.2016 under section 156 of the Act was issued upon the said company raising demand of Rs. 5,51,56,520/-.
3.2 Being aggrieved by the said assessment order and demand notice, the said company preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Ta
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 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 held liable under Section 179 if there is a prior finding that the tax cannot be recovered from the company, and lapses must be attributable to their negligence.
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....
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 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.
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
