AMIT TAK, SON OF SHRI ANIL TAK vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
What did the High Court hold?
The High Court held that since a common order was passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for all three assessment years, and subsequent developments had occurred, including the setting aside of the demand order for assessment year 2015-16 under Section 263 and the disposal of appeals for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, the impugned order under Section 179 was set aside. The matter was remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur, to decide the issue afresh in view of these subsequent developments. The Court clarified that the setting aside of the order does not constitute an opinion on the merits of the case. The petitions were accordingly disposed of.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Amit Tak, was a director of Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Private Limited. The Income Tax Department had raised demands against the company for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. Following the company's failure to pay, proceedings were initiated against the petitioner under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The impugned order under Section 179 was dated March 13, 2018. During the pendency of the writ petitions, it was revealed that the order creating demand for assessment year 2015-16 was set aside by the Commissioner under Section 263, and the matter was remanded. Furthermore, appeals for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 concerning the company had been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the impugned order under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was passed for all three assessment years, is liable to be set aside in light of subsequent developments, specifically the setting aside of the demand order for assessment year 2015-16 under Section 263 and the disposal of appeals for assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 by the ITAT. Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that due to significant subsequent developments, including the quashing of one demand and the disposal of others, the order passed under Section 179 should be reconsidered. Revenue's Contention: The judgment does not explicitly record the revenue's specific arguments on the merits of the case, but it acknowledges the subsequent developments that impacted the demand against the company.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Order 06/02/2025
These petitions are being decided by common order as the facts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are being taken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2020. 2. This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 13.03.2018 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’).
The brief facts are that the petitioner was director of Geetanjali Hotels & Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as ‘the company’). The demand against the company under the Act was created for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and 2015-16. As per case of the department, on failure to recover the amount from the company, proceedings were initiated against the Director under Section 179 of the Act. Hence, the present petition.
During the arguments, it is revealed that for assessment year 2015-16, the order creating the demand against the company was set aside by the commissioner under Section 263 of the Act and the matter was remanded.
As per the counsel appearing for the department, the appeals pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 of the Company have been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
[2025:RJ-JP:5216-DB] (3 of 3) [CW-12994/2020]
Since much water has flown during the pendency of the petition. One of the order creating the demand was set aside, since common order was passed for all three assessment years, consequently, the impugned order under Section 179 of the Act is set aside and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur to decide the issue afresh in view of the subsequent development. The petitions are accordingly disposed of.
It is clarified that setting aside of the order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case.
In order to avoid further delay, let the petitioner personally or through representatives remain present in the office of respondent No.1 on 06.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /57-58
More judgments on Section 179
- Aone Dairy Products Private Limited, Chennai vs Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ChennaiITA 3717/CHNY/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed17 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Ajay Surendra Patel vs Deputy Commissioner of Income TaxSCA/6580/201611 Sept 2026
- Uday Nagpure, Mumbai vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), MumbaiITA 2096/MUM/2026[2011-2012]Status: Disposed31 Aug 2026AY 2011-2012
- Tcm Logistics Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs Income Tax Officer, WD-15(3)(1), MumbaiITA 973/MUM/2026[2012-13]Status: Disposed17 Jun 2026AY 2012-13
- Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central… vs Ab Alcobev Private Limited, DelhiITA 357/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: Disposed1 Sept 2025AY 2017-18
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Prabhudatta Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of Commercial Taxes And Goods And Services Tax, OdishaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Rajesh Kumar Gupta vs. Joint Commissioner Of GST (Appeal), Territorial Range, BolangirOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Attitude Exim PVT. LTD., Rourkela vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S.Pradeep Kumar Mahapatra, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent Bhubaneswar-Iii Circle, CGST Range, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
