ORDER :

By this common order, all these writ petitions are being disposed.

2. The petitioner has challenged these order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 1 and 2, Coimbatore under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Details of the impugned order are as under:-

3. These orders are challenged by the petitioner primarily on the ground that invocation of Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without jurisdiction in as much as the assessee in default in the respective cases of which the petitioner by directors/shareholders were not private limited companies.

4. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in M. Rajamoni Amma Vs. DU.C.I.T 1993 supplement (1) SCC wherein it was held as under:-

4. Before us, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the above communication from the Registrar of Companies but since the genuineness of this letter was doubted we issued notice to the Registrar of Companies, Kerala. It clearly shows that the company had become a public limited company by virtue of Section 43-A of the Companies Act w.e.f. October 1, 1975. As already mentioned, the arrears sought to be recovered from the appellants relate to the assessment years 1977-78 to 1982-83. Obviously, the Company being a public limited company, proceedings against the directors for recovery of the tax due from the company cannot be taken, and certainly not proceeded with, under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. We need hardly say Article 265 of the Constitution clearly prohibits any attempt to recover taxes except under the authority of law. It is, therefore, clear that further proceedings against the appellants for recovery of the tax due from the company have to be stayed.

5. For the reasons stated above, we allow these appeals, quash the order passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act by the Deputy Commissioner and the further orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in revision and under Section 154 of the Act. Further proceedings against the present appellants for recovery of the tax due from the company should not be taken. We, however, should not be understood as having in any way restricted the powers of the department to recover the amounts due from the company by other processes in accordance with law. We also make it clear that any amounts which might have been paid either by the appellants or by the company in the course of the proceedings now under challenge will not be liable to be refunded to the appellants.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the decisions of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pravinbhai M. Kheni Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others [2013] ITR Guj 353 is not applicable to the facts in as much as it dealt with a liability of a company and there was a wrong declaration that it was a public limited company.

6. He was further submitted that the opening paragraph of the order in Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Pravinbhai M.Kheni Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax & Others [2013] ITR Guj 353 itself makes it clear that the petitioner therein was a director of a private limited company and therefore invocation of Section 179 was attracted.

7. Mr. A.P. Srinivas, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the writ petition was liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the petitioners have an alternate remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act 1962 by way of revision and therefore liberty may