Court rejects intervention in Income Tax Act recovery, directs officer to decide on notice with stay. Petitioner granted remedies.

The court declined to intervene in the recovery proceedings against a company under the Income Tax Act, 1961, initiated through a notice under Section 179. The court directed the officer to decide on the notice, with a stay on enforcement for four weeks if adverse to the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed to seek remedies, and the officer was instructed to provide a personal hearing. The writ petition was disposed of with these directions, closing the pending application and requiring compliance with the digitally signed order.

---

---

Issues involved:
The judgment involves the recovery of outstanding demand against a company under the Income Tax Act, 1961, specifically concerning Assessment Year 2008-09. The petitioner, a director of the company, has challenged the notice issued under Section 179 of the Act.

Details of the judgment:

Issue 1: Challenge to the notice dated 25.04.2023 under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the notice seeking to recover the outstanding demand against the company. The petitioner's counsel informed the court that an appeal against the assessment order has been pending since 2013 and a response to the show-cause notice has been filed. The court noted that the reply to the notice dated 11.05.2023 was not on record but was shown a hard copy of the same.

Issue 2: Court's Direction and Decision
The court declined to intervene in the proceedings at that stage but directed the concerned officer to adjudicate the show-cause notice dated 25.04.2023. If the decision is adverse to the petitioner, its enforcement shall be stayed for four weeks from the date of the order being served. The petitioner was granted the liberty to seek appropriate remedies against such a decision. The assessing officer was instructed to provide a personal hearing to the petitioner or their representative before proceeding further.

Conclusion
The writ petition was disposed of with the above directions. The pending application was closed, and the parties were instructed to act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.

---