TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (12) TMI 1007
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ection 264 of the Act. The genesis of the impugned order is the unpaid tax demand of Rs. 69.89 lakhs (income tax and surcharge of Rs. 40 lakhs (approximately) and interest of Rs. 28 lakhs approximately) for Assessment Year 199798 of M/s. Jeevan Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd. (defaulting company). The petitioner is a Director of the defaulting company, thus proceedings for recovery under Section 179 of the Act were commenced by show cause notice dated 29th January, 2003 under Section 179 of the Act against the petitioner. This notice was confirmed by the impugned order dated 24th March, 2003 and the Revision Application filed under Section 264 of the Act against the order dated 24th March, 2003 which was rejected by order dated 31st July, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....m the defaulting company to the Revenue. The interest payable on the tax and/or any penalty imposed upon the defaulting company is outside the scope of recovery from the Director of a defaulting company in terms of Section 179 of the Act. In support of his contention, the petitioner relies upon the decision of this Court in Dinesh T. Tailor v/s. Tax Recovery Officer and others 326 ITR 85 and the decision of Apex Court in Harshad Shantilal Mehta v/s. Custodian and others 231 ITR 871. It is further submitted by Mr. Gopal that the explanation inserted to Section 179 of the Act by the Finance Act 2013 with effect from 1st June, 2013 would not have retrospective effect but would only be prospective. In support he placed reliance upon the decisio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Consequently, the delay, if any, has been sufficiently explained by the petitioner in moving this Court. 7. We are of the view that before the issue of interpretation of the word 'Tax due' can be decided, the factual aspect of the amount due on account of tax and interest from the defaulting company has to be ascertained. This is more so in view of the fact that the demand under Section 156 of the Act along with computation of tax, which is shown to us is dated 28th December, 2004 i.e. much before the petition was filed. However, no reference was made to it in the petition nor any amendments moved to the petition over the last 10 years when the petition was pending. Therefore it would be appropriate to restore the issue before the ....