TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2013 (5) TMI 331
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ment year 1995-96 recovering the amount of tax and interest from the petitioner; b. A Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to refund the amount of tax and interest recovered from the petitioner pursuant to the order dated 24.10.2011; c. A Writ of Certiorari or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the order dt. 08.10.2012 passed by the respondent u/s. 179 of the act recovering the penalty imposed u/s. 271 (i)(c) in the name of the company; d. A writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent to not r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; "2. The assessee has not attended on 21.10.2011 nor has furnished any submission which proves that the addition which has been made was not due to his neglect or breach of duty. The silence on part of director is treated as acceptance of the proposal of order u/s. 179 of the Act. Shri Nayan M. Shah has failed to prove that on his part there was no breach of duty in relation to the affairs of the company or any negligence which has led to these circumstances. In the circumstances I treat Shri Nayan M. Shah, who was a director of the company during accounting period relevant to A.Y. 1995-96, as jointly and severally liable for payment of the above outstanding dues of the aforesaid assessee company." 5. It is an undisputed positio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... it clear that he is confining this petition to the action of the respondents in seeking to recover the interest and penalty from the petitioner arising out of the assessment of the company in question for the assessment year 1995-96. 9. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties on these issues. Short question is whether in exercise of powers under Section 179 of the Act any recovery can be made from the petitioner towards interest and penalty with respect to the private limited company, in which, the petitioner was a Director. It is clarified that the petitioner is not questioning the recovery of the principal tax due from such company. 10. A Division Bench of this Court in case of Maganbhai Hansrajbhai Patel v. Asstt....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable. Section 156 reads as under : "156. Where any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under the Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable : (Provided that where any sum is determined to be payable by the assessee under sub-section(1) of section 143, the intimation under the sub-section shall be deemed to be a notice of demand for the purposes of this section.)" 18.When we compare the language used in ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany and that would make the director an assessee within section 2(7) of the Act. To our mind, the liability of the director to pay the dues of the company arises in terms of section 179(1) of the Act and such liability would be co-extensive as provided in the said provision which as we notice refers to tax dues. The director may be considered an assessee under section 2(7) of the Act which provides that assessee means a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under the Act. However, the same must be qua the tax of the company which was due and remained unpaid. By virtue of section 179(1) of the Act, the director cannot be held liable for interest and penalty and thereupon be treated as an assessee under section 2(7) of....