TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2012 (10) TMI 429
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssment year is 2001-02. 2. In all these appeals, the grounds raised are identical. For the sake of convenience and clarity, they are reformulated as under: (i) that the CIT(A) misdirected himself in assuming that the assessees were not aggrieved by the order passed u/s 143(3) (sic) 143 (3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act in the case of KBL and, thus, the impugned order requires to be quashed; & (ii) that once the tax due from KBL was sought to be recovered from the present assessees, they have become aggrieved by the impugned order passed. 3. As the issues raised by the above mentioned assessees being similar , these appeals were heard, considered together and disposed off in this consolidated order. 4. Briefly stated....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apprehending that the threat of the provisions of s. 179 of the Act continues and the liability of KBL to be saddled on them, they took a view that they were aggrieved by the order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act passed in the case of KBL. Rely on the following case laws: ♦ Adi Pherozshah Gandhi v. H.M. Seervai AIR 1971 SC 385; ♦ Baburam v. State of U.P. [1995] 2 SCC 689; & ♦ CIT v. N. Ch. R. Row & Co. [1983] 144 ITR 557 (Cal.)." 6. After due consideration of the submissions/contentions of the assessees and also extensively quoting the provisions of s. 246A of the Act, the learned CIT(A) had observed thus: "5.1 Thus, the characteristic of being aggrieved is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tary ground for the assessees to presume that they are entitled to challenge the order passed in the case of KBL. 9.1 On a perusal of the impugned assessment order of the AO, we find that a demand of Rs. 12.82 crores had been raised in the case of KBL. Subsequently, a letter dt.31.3.2008 was issued by the AO to the Principal Officer, M/s Britania Industries Ltd., Bangalore, informing them that the balance demand in the case of KBL was stayed till 30.4.2008 or disposal of appeal by the CIT(A) whichever was earlier etc., a copy of which was also endorsed to all the erstwhile directors of KBL. Perhaps, this had prompted the assessees to challenge the assessment order in the case of KBL. However, KBL on its own had challenged the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of demand will be considered unless 50% of the demand is paid by 15.5.08' in the case of KBL for the AY 2001-02 and a copy of which endorsed to the present assessees, in our considered view, cannot be attributed by any stretch of imagination that the assessees have been made liable to pay tax due on behalf of KBL. Moreover, no order u/s 179 of the Act has been produced to justify their claim that they have been aggrieved of by the said order. 9.4 In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the apprehension of the assessees that they have been made liable to pay a portion of tax u/s 179 of the Act, is unwarranted and misconceived. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, no person can be made liable to pay any tax for him....