MR B MURALIDHAR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DCIT)

PDF · subscribers
WP/15198/2023HC KarnatakaKAHC01035475202316 October 2024Author: M.I.ARUN4 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that Section 264(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, provides an alternative and efficacious remedy for a person aggrieved by an order passed under Section 179 of the Act. The court observed that if a person is dissatisfied with an order under Section 179, they can prefer a revision before the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner. Therefore, as the petitioner possesses an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is dismissed. The petitioner is granted liberty to approach the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The court further directed that if the petitioner prefers a revision, the concerned authority should consider the time spent by the petitioner in pursuing the writ petition while condoning any delay in filing the revision.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Mr. B Muralidhar, is challenging an order dated 29.03.2023 issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (DCIT) under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The order was passed on the grounds that the petitioner was a Director of M/s. A and G Project and Technologies Limited. The petitioner contends that he was not a Director of the said company during the relevant period and that the order was erroneously passed. The respondent, DCIT, justified the order and argued that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 264 of the Act. The Registrar of Companies (R.O.C) was also a respondent, but notice to them was dispensed with.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the writ petition is maintainable when the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning an order passed under Section 179 of the Act. Assessee's contention: The petitioner is challenging the order passed under Section 179 of the Act, asserting he was not a director during the relevant period and the order is erroneous. The petitioner has approached the High Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution. Revenue's contention: The respondent No.1 (DCIT) justifies the impugned order and prays for the dismissal of the writ petition. The respondent further submits that the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 264 of the Act, and on this ground also, the writ petition should be dismissed.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 179,Section 264

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2024 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.15198 OF 2023 (T-IT)

BETWEEN:

MR. B MURALIDHAR AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/AT NO.763, 14TH CROSS, J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE, BANGALORE-560 078.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI B. MURALIDHAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (DCIT) CORPORATE CIRCLE-1 (1), ROOM NO.611, WANAPARTHY BLOCK, 6TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 121, M.G. ROAD, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600 034.

2.

THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES (R.O.C) NO.7, 2ND FLOOR, KARUVADIKUPPAM MAIN ROAD, SETHAMARAI NAGAR, MUTHILPET, PUDUCHERRY-605 003.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI M. DILIP, ADVOCATE FOR R.1; NOTICE TO R.2 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 06.10.2023.)

Digitally signed by CHAITHANYA K Location: High Court of Karnataka

THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER DATED 29.03.2023 BEARING DIN AND LETTER NO. ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/1051587111(1) ISSUED U/S.179 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT ANNEXURE-Q, ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.1, ETC.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.I.ARUN

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner in the instant writ petition is challenging the impugned order dated 29.03.2023 passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') by first respondent. 2. An order under Section 179 of the Act is passed as against the petitioner on the ground that he was one of the Director of an assessee Company - M/s.A and G Project and Technologies Limited. The case of the petitioner is that he was not the Director of the said Company during the relevant period and the said order has been passed erroneously.

3.

Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 justifies the impugned order and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. He further submits that the impugned order is passed under Section 179 of the Act and the petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy under Section 264 of the said Act. On the said ground also, the respondent No.1 prays that the writ petition be dismissed. 4. Section 179 of the Act pertains to Liability of directors of private company in liquidation. 5. Section 264(1) of the Act reads as under: "Revision of other orders. 264. (1) In the case of any order other than an order to which section 263 applies passed by an authority subordinate to him, the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner may, either of his own motion or on an application by the assessee for revision, call for the record of any proceeding under this Act in which any such order has been passed and may make such inquiry or cause such inquiry to be made and, subject to the provisions of this Act, may pass such order thereon, not being an order prejudicial to the assessee, as he thinks fit.”

6.

Perusal of Section 264(1) of the Act shows that if a person is aggrieved by an order passed under Section 179 of the Act, they can prefer a revision against the said order and an alternative and efficacious remedy is provided for. 7. As the petitioner is having an alternative and efficacious remedy, the writ petition is hereby dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach the appropriate Authority in accordance with law. Further, if the petitioner prefers a revision, the Authority concerned shall take into consideration the time spent by him before this Court pursuing the instant writ petition, while condoning the delay if any, in preferring such revision.

Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE

VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51

More judgments on Section 179

All 36 judgments and leading authorities on Section 179 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →