Back
2025 Supreme(RAJ) 1030
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan, Mr. Justice Pramil Kumar Mathur, JJ
AMIT TAK SON OF SHRI ANIL TAK – Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX – Respondent
CW / 12994 / 2020
Important Points
Subject
Taxation Law - Income Tax
Act Referred
Headnote
(B) Remand of matter - The order creating demand for assessment year 2015-16 was set aside, leading to the need to reconsider the demand for all three assessment years - Consequently, the impugned order under Section 179 was set aside and remitted back for fresh consideration. (Paras 6, 8)
(C) Clarification - The setting aside of the order does not indicate any opinion on the merits of the case. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a director of a company, faced proceedings under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act due to failure to recover tax from the company for specific assessment years. The demand for one assessment year was set aside, necessitating a review of the remaining years.
Findings of Court:
The court set aside the order under Section 179 and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax.
Issues: The main issue was whether the demand against the director could stand given the subsequent developments regarding the company’s assessment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that due to the setting aside of the demand for one assessment year, the corresponding order against the director could not remain valid and required fresh evaluation.
Result: The petitions are disposed of.
Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal, Mr. Rajat Sharma, Mr. Vikram Singh, Ms. Anika Anna for Respondent(s): Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati
Order :
1. These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2020.
2. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 13.03.2018 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
3. The brief facts are that the petitioner was director of Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’). The demand against the company under the Act was created for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16. As per case of the department, on failure to recover the amount from the company, proceedings were initiated against the Director under Section 179 of the Act. Hence, the present petition.
4. During the arguments, it is revealed that for assessment year 2015-16, the order creating the demand against the company was set aside by the commissioner under Section 263 of the Act and the matter was remanded.
5. As per the counsel appearing for the department, the appeals pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 of the Company have been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
6. Since much water has flown during the pendency of the petition. One of the order creating the demand was set aside, since common order was passed for all three assessment years, consequently, the impugned order under Section 179 of the Act is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur to decide the issue afresh in view of the subsequent development. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
7. It is clarified that setting aside of the order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
8. In order to avoid further delay, let the petitioner personally or through representatives remain present in the office of respondent No.1 on 06.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m.
