VittSphere ONE Calculators Blog CA Prabhakar Kumar · FCA · ICAI 560762
Case lawIncome-tax Act 2025Chapter XVII › Section 323
Chapter XVIIwas s.179

Section 323 of the Income-tax Act, 2025

Section 323 — Liability of directors of private company. Successor to s.179 of the 1961 Act.

Where this section sits

Section 323 is in Chapter XVII — Special Provisions Relating to Certain Persons, which runs from section 302 to section 355.

← Section 322  ·  Section 324 →

What this section does

It makes every person who was a director of a private company at any time during the relevant tax year jointly and severally liable for tax due from that company for that year which cannot be recovered from the company itself, notwithstanding anything in the Companies Act, 2013. The liability extends to any other company as well, in respect of income of a tax year during which that company was a private company. The director escapes only by proving that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. Sub-section (2) makes "tax due" include penalty, interest, fees or any other sum payable under the Act.

Why it is there

It pierces limited liability where a private company's tax cannot be collected, putting the burden on the directors of the year in question to show they were not at fault rather than on the department to prove they were.

Who it applies to

What this means in practice

Being a director for any part of the tax year is enough to be within the section — there is no requirement that you were in office when the tax fell due or when recovery failed. The liability is joint and several, so the whole amount can be demanded from any one of you, and it covers penalty, interest and fees as well as tax. The only way out is affirmative: you must prove the non-recovery is not attributable to your gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the company's affairs, which means keeping evidence of what you did about the company's tax position while in office.

An example

Illustrative only, and invented for this page. The figures are chosen to show the rule biting, not taken from any real matter.

A private company is left owing Rs. 3 crore of tax, interest and penalty which cannot be recovered from it. A person who was a director for two months of the relevant tax year, and resigned well before the demand arose, is jointly and severally liable for the whole Rs. 3 crore: sub-section (2) puts penalty, interest and fees inside “tax due”, and the test in sub-section (1) is having been a director at any time during that tax year. He gets out only by proving affirmatively that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part, and the Companies Act, 2013 is no shelter, the section opening with a non obstante clause over it.

Where you meet this section

As recovery proceedings and a demand pressed against you personally once recovery from the company has failed, in which the defence has to be made out by you. The section names no form and no authority; a director of a company that is no longer private is reached the same way for a tax year during which it was private.

The words themselves

every person, who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant tax year, shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless he proves that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part
Section 323(1), Income-tax Act, 2025.

What people get wrong

What this replaced

The correspondence is the Income Tax Department’s own, from its comparison utility for the 1961 and 2025 Acts. A renumbering is the easy half; whether the words changed is the half that decides cases.

See the full 1961 to 2025 concordance.

Case law carried across

Read this before you rely on it. Every decision below was decided under the Income-tax Act, 1961. It appears here because it is tagged to a 1961 provision that the department’s own mapping carries to section 323. That is an inference we have drawn, not a holding on the new section: where the words changed in the move, the reasoning may not survive. Treat this as the place to start looking, not as authority on the 2025 Act.

Explainers

What this page does not tell you. It does not reproduce the section. Everything above was written from the section’s own text as the Income Tax Department publishes it — the text is here, and nothing here is advice on your facts. Where a figure matters, read the sub-section it comes from.