TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (9) TMI 911
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tioners have also challenged the consequential acts of the second respondent-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar (Haryana), issuing notices under Section 226(3) to various authorities and banks to attach the petitioners' properties and bank accounts. 2. M/s Vikas WSP Limited (hereinafter to be referred to as "the company") was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 on 02.06.1988 as a private company limited by shares. With effect from 22.09.1992, the company became a public company under Section 43 of the Companies Act. 3. The company, admittedly, did not file its return of income for the Assessment Year 2013-14 within the period stipulated, namely, 30.11.2013. Respondent No.2 accordingly issued a notice under Section 221(1) r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ee days of the show cause notice. The order records that replies to the show cause notice had been received from the directors in which it was inter alia contended that the company is a public limited company and, therefore, the provisions of Section 179 were not applicable. It was contended that section 179 applies only to private limited companies. The only reasoning in the entire impugned order is as follows:- "4. Further, since the company has neither furnished its return of income for AY 2013-14 nor paid its self assessment tax of Rs. 105,04,96,130/-, there is apparent gross neglect or misfeasance or breach of duty on part of directors in relation to affairs of company." 7. Section 179 of the Income Tax Act reads as under:- "179. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of the entire issued, subscribed and paid up share capital. She stated that the balance shares are held by about 50,000 share-holders. Ms. Bansal contended that section 179 applies only to private companies and not to public companies. 9. Mr. Yogesh Putney, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2, on the other hand, submitted that the company is, in fact, a glorified partnership and that it is a fit case where the corporate veil ought to be lifted. He submitted that even in income tax cases it is permissible to lift the corporate veil. 10. We will assume, as submitted by Mr. Putney, that the corporate veil can in a given case, be lifted even for the purposes of the Income Tax Act. Ms. Riya Bansal, however, contended th....