Recovery of tax – Company in liquidation – Recovery from director – Section 179 of ITA, 1961 – Where A.O. issued a notice u/s 179 against assessee director of a company seeking to recover tax dues of the company, since such notice was totally silent regarding fact that tax dues could not be recovered from company and, further, there was no whisper of any steps being taken against company for recovery of outstanding amount, impugned notice u/s 179 against director was to be set aside

6. Ashita Nilesh Patel vs.
ACIT

[2020] 115 taxmann.com 37
(Guj.)

Date of order: 20^th
January, 2020

A.Ys.: 2011-12 to 2014-15

Recovery of tax – Company in
liquidation – Recovery from director – Section 179 of ITA, 1961 – Where A.O.
issued a notice u/s 179 against assessee director of a company seeking to
recover tax dues of the company, since such notice was totally silent regarding
fact that tax dues could not be recovered from company and, further, there was
no whisper of any steps being taken against company for recovery of outstanding
amount, impugned notice u/s 179 against director was to be set aside

The assessee was a director in
the company TPPL which failed to make payment of outstanding tax demand of
certain amount. The A.O. observed that it was noticed from the records of the
company that there were no recoverable assets in the name of the assessee
company. In such circumstances, proceedings u/s 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961
were initiated by way of issuing of notice to the assessee treating her as
jointly and severally liable for payment of such tax.

The assessee filed a writ
petition challenging the notice. The Gujarat High Court allowed the writ
petition and held as under:

‘i)    Section 179(1) provides for the joint and several liability of
the directors of a private company, wherein the tax dues from such company in
respect of any income of any previous year cannot be recovered. The first
requirement, therefore, to attract such liability of the director of a private
limited company is that the tax cannot be recovered from the company itself.
Such requirement is held to be a pre-requisite and necessary condition to be
fulfilled before action u/s 179 can be taken. In the context of section 179
before recovery in respect of the dues from a private company can be initiated
against the directors, to make them jointly and severally liable for such dues,
it is necessary for the Revenue to establish that such recovery cannot be made
against the company and then alone can it reach to the directors who were
responsible for the conduct of the business during the previous year in
relation to which liability exists.

ii)    There is no escape from the fact that the perusal of the notice
u/s 179 reveals that the same is totally silent as regards the satisfaction of
the condition precedent for taking action u/s 179, viz., that the tax dues
cannot be recovered from the company. In the show cause notice, there is no
whisper of any steps having been taken against the company for recovery of the
outstanding amount. Even in the impugned order, no such details or information
has been stated.

iii)   In the circumstances referred to above, the question is whether
such an order could be said to be sustainable in law. The answer has to be in
the negative. At the same time, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
case and, more particularly, when it has been indicated by way of an additional
affidavit-in-reply as regards the steps taken against the company for the
recovery of the dues, one chance is to be given to the Department to undertake
a fresh exercise so far as section 179 is concerned. If the show cause notice
is silent including the impugned order, the void left behind in the two
documents cannot be filled by way of an affidavit-in-reply. Ultimately, it is
the subjective satisfaction of the authority concerned that is important and it
should be reflected from the order itself based on some cogent materials.