TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1996 (6) TMI 19
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....P-21 and P-22. For the year 1983-84, the petitioner-company filed a return showing loss of Rs. 66,03,647. By exhibit P-2 assessment order, the assessing authority found a net income of Rs. 23,26,565 and an amount of Rs. 20,39,680 was demanded as tax, interest, etc. The petitioners agitated against the assessment before various authorities and now it is admitted that the assessable income of the co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted that the order passed under section 179 is illegal. According to him, the company in question is not a private company, it is a public company. Further, counsel submitted that it cannot be said that there was gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on the part of the directors. Learned counsel for the Revenue opposed and submitted that there is nothing to show that the first petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uthority was without taking into consideration certain deductions which were available to the petitioners. Originally, a tax at Rs. 21,67,400 was imposed. Since the company directors challenged the assessment order before various authorities, the tax has now been reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs odd. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the non-recovery of tax was due to the negligence of the direct....