The department is recovering the company's tax from me as a director. I resigned, and an MOU and an arbitral award put the tax liability on another director. Is that a defence under s.179?
No. The burden under s.179(1) is on the director to prove that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to his gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty - it is not for the Revenue to prove that he was guilty of it. And a private arrangement between directors, even one affirmed by an arbitral award upheld by the High Court, governs rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority; income-tax liability cannot be apportioned by private agreement.
Decided by the High Court (Manmohan J and Navin Chawla J) on 2021-09-24, reported as W.P.(C) 7869/2021 & CM APPL. 24474-475/2021 (High Court of Delhi); reserved 25.08.2021. It bears on section 179, section 179(1), section 264, section 221(1), section 220(2), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters.
The library carries a line of decisions quashing s.179 orders for want of a recorded finding that the tax cannot be recovered from the company. This is the other side of that line. The Court accepts the same condition precedent - the Assessing Officer must find that the dues could not be recovered from the company - but holds it satisfied where the order records demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of the company's bank accounts and partial recovery. It also disposes of the two arguments directors most often run: that the Revenue must first show gross neglect, and that a settlement deed or arbitral award allocating the tax to someone else is an answer. Neither is.
Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere.
Read aloud by your device. Press again to stop.
The petitioner and two other promoters formed the Realtech group of companies in 2005. Disputes arose in 2010-11 and an MOU of 02.06.2011 recorded that the petitioner resigned as director of some group companies and that all income-tax liabilities of four named companies would be borne by another director, Mr Pankaj Dayal, who was allotted 17,000 sq ft in City Emporia Mall, Chandigarh to meet them. A settlement deed of 16.12.2015 reaffirmed this; an arbitral award of 28.01.2018 upheld the MOU; and a single Judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the award on 29.10.2018. Meanwhile demand notices under s.156 for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 were served on the companies on 29.03.2014, notices under s.221(1) were issued on 14.11.2014, the companies did not reply, their bank accounts were attached and Rs.10,38,373 and Rs.62,00,000 were recovered. Show-cause notices under s.179(1) were issued to all three directors on 19.09.2017 requiring replies by 25.09.2017; one director replied, the petitioner did not reply at any time before the order. Orders under s.179(1) were passed against all three directors on 29.01.2018 for an outstanding demand of Rs.5,89,68,019, and the petitioner's revision was rejected on 01.04.2021.
The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merits, with no order as to costs (para 27). Section 179 imposes a vicarious responsibility and must be interpreted rigidly, the primary condition being that the tax dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the Assessing Officer must give a finding (para 18) - a condition satisfied here on the record of demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of bank accounts and partial recovery (paras 20 and 22). The submission that the Revenue must demonstrate that the director was guilty of gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty is contrary to the explicit language of s.179; the burden is on the individual director to prove the contrary (para 23). The MOU, settlement deed and arbitral award govern rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority such as the Revenue, and private parties cannot apportion income-tax liability by private agreement (paras 25 and 26). Section 179 permits recovery against a director only, and not against other group companies which are distinct legal entities (para 21).
The Court first set out s.179(1) and analysed its ingredients: vicarious liability, rigid construction, and the primary condition that the dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the officer must record a finding before proceeding against a director (paras 17 and 18). It then tested the petitioner's factual assertion that no recovery steps had been taken and found it incorrect on the material recited in the s.179 order and in the s.264 order (paras 20 and 22). On the assets said to be available, it noted that the dues of the company developing the mall were only Rs.12.17 lakhs and that the demands of the other companies could not be met out of that company's assets, s.179 not reaching other group companies (para 21). On burden, it applied the language of the sub-section and the Bombay High Court's Division Bench in Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar, where the director's plea of being busy with social work was rejected and the discharge of the burden was held to be a pure question of fact not entertainable in writ (paras 23 and 24). On the MOU and award, it applied the arbitrability distinction in Booz Allen & Hamilton (paras 25 and 26). On natural justice, it accepted the Revenue's record of the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2017 dispatched by speed post and the absence of any reply (paras 14 to 16).
The burden is on the individual Director to prove that the non-recovery was not due to his gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part.
Upload it and we will read it, work out your deadline and draft the reply. A CA reviews before anything is filed.
Handle my notice → Ask a CA on WhatsAppNo. The burden under s.179(1) is on the director to prove that the non-recovery cannot be attributed to his gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty - it is not for the Revenue to prove that he was guilty of it. And a private arrangement between directors, even one affirmed by an arbitral award upheld by the High Court, governs rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority; income-tax liability cannot be apportioned by private agreement. This was decided by the High Court (Manmohan J and Navin Chawla J) and bears on section 179, section 179(1), section 264, section 221(1), section 220(2), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961. It is reported as W.P.(C) 7869/2021 & CM APPL. 24474-475/2021 (High Court of Delhi); reserved 25.08.2021. The library carries a line of decisions quashing s.179 orders for want of a recorded finding that the tax cannot be recovered from the company. This is the other side of that line. The Court accepts the same condition precedent - the Assessing Officer must find that the dues could not be recovered from the company - but holds it satisfied where the order records demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of the company's bank accounts and partial recovery. It also disposes of the two arguments directors most often run: that the Revenue must first show gross neglect, and that a settlement deed or arbitral award allocating the tax to someone else is an answer. Neither is. If it applies to you, the first step is this: Answer the s.179 show-cause notice on the date given. The petitioner here filed nothing, and the Court treated that as fatal to his natural-justice argument.
The petitioner and two other promoters formed the Realtech group of companies in 2005. Disputes arose in 2010-11 and an MOU of 02.06.2011 recorded that the petitioner resigned as director of some group companies and that all income-tax liabilities of four named companies would be borne by another director, Mr Pankaj Dayal, who was allotted 17,000 sq ft in City Emporia Mall, Chandigarh to meet them. A settlement deed of 16.12.2015 reaffirmed this; an arbitral award of 28.01.2018 upheld the MOU; and a single Judge of the Delhi High Court upheld the award on 29.10.2018. Meanwhile demand notices under s.156 for AYs 2006-07 to 2009-10 were served on the companies on 29.03.2014, notices under s.221(1) were issued on 14.11.2014, the companies did not reply, their bank accounts were attached and Rs.10,38,373 and Rs.62,00,000 were recovered. Show-cause notices under s.179(1) were issued to all three directors on 19.09.2017 requiring replies by 25.09.2017; one director replied, the petitioner did not reply at any time before the order. Orders under s.179(1) were passed against all three directors on 29.01.2018 for an outstanding demand of Rs.5,89,68,019, and the petitioner's revision was rejected on 01.04.2021. The matter was decided on 2021-09-24 by the High Court (Manmohan J and Navin Chawla J). On those facts the High Court held as follows. The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merits, with no order as to costs (para 27). Section 179 imposes a vicarious responsibility and must be interpreted rigidly, the primary condition being that the tax dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the Assessing Officer must give a finding (para 18) - a condition satisfied here on the record of demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of bank accounts and partial recovery (paras 20 and 22). The submission that the Revenue must demonstrate that the director was guilty of gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty is contrary to the explicit language of s.179; the burden is on the individual director to prove the contrary (para 23). The MOU, settlement deed and arbitral award govern rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority such as the Revenue, and private parties cannot apportion income-tax liability by private agreement (paras 25 and 26). Section 179 permits recovery against a director only, and not against other group companies which are distinct legal entities (para 21).
The Court first set out s.179(1) and analysed its ingredients: vicarious liability, rigid construction, and the primary condition that the dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the officer must record a finding before proceeding against a director (paras 17 and 18). It then tested the petitioner's factual assertion that no recovery steps had been taken and found it incorrect on the material recited in the s.179 order and in the s.264 order (paras 20 and 22). On the assets said to be available, it noted that the dues of the company developing the mall were only Rs.12.17 lakhs and that the demands of the other companies could not be met out of that company's assets, s.179 not reaching other group companies (para 21). On burden, it applied the language of the sub-section and the Bombay High Court's Division Bench in Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar, where the director's plea of being busy with social work was rejected and the discharge of the burden was held to be a pure question of fact not entertainable in writ (paras 23 and 24). On the MOU and award, it applied the arbitrability distinction in Booz Allen & Hamilton (paras 25 and 26). On natural justice, it accepted the Revenue's record of the show-cause notice dated 19.09.2017 dispatched by speed post and the absence of any reply (paras 14 to 16). In the words reproduced by the source cited on this page: "The burden is on the individual Director to prove that the non-recovery was not due to his gross negligence, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part." The decision followed or applied Union of India v. Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar 1987 SCC OnLine Bom 378 - followed on burden of proof; Ram Prakash Singeshwar Rungta v. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 641 (Guj) - relied on by the assessee; the condition precedent it lays down accepted but held satisfied on these facts; Booz Allen & Hamilton Inc. v. SBI Home Finance Limited (2011) 5 SCC 532 - applied on rights in rem and in personam.
It was decided by the High Court on 2021-09-24 and is reported as W.P.(C) 7869/2021 & CM APPL. 24474-475/2021 (High Court of Delhi); reserved 25.08.2021. Binding within that High Court's jurisdiction. Persuasive elsewhere. A High Court decision binds the assessing officer, the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal within that state, and is persuasive elsewhere. If your assessment is in a different jurisdiction, check whether your own High Court has taken the same view before relying on it. On section 179, section 179(1), section 264, section 221(1), section 220(2), section 156, the practical question is whether the facts of your own notice match the facts of this case closely enough for the same rule to apply.
It helps the department, and it appears in this library for that reason — you need to know what the Assessing Officer will cite against you. The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merits, with no order as to costs (para 27). Section 179 imposes a vicarious responsibility and must be interpreted rigidly, the primary condition being that the tax dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the Assessing Officer must give a finding (para 18) - a condition satisfied here on the record of demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of bank accounts and partial recovery (paras 20 and 22). The submission that the Revenue must demonstrate that the director was guilty of gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty is contrary to the explicit language of s.179; the burden is on the individual director to prove the contrary (para 23). The MOU, settlement deed and arbitral award govern rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority such as the Revenue, and private parties cannot apportion income-tax liability by private agreement (paras 25 and 26). Section 179 permits recovery against a director only, and not against other group companies which are distinct legal entities (para 21). It arises in Demand, Recovery & Stay matters, on section 179, section 179(1), section 264, section 221(1), section 220(2), section 156 of the Income Tax Act 1961, and was decided by Manmohan J and Navin Chawla J. Before relying on it, read the source linked on this page and check whether it has since been distinguished, overruled or overtaken by an amendment to the Income Tax Act. In practice the steps that follow from it are these. Plead and prove the negative yourself: set out, with material, why the non-recovery from the company cannot be attributed to your gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty during the relevant previous year. Do not wait for the Revenue to make the case against you. Test the recovery narrative in the order - which demand notices were served, whether s.221(1) notices went out, what was attached and what was actually recovered. That is the record on which the condition precedent stands or falls. Do not rely on an MOU, settlement deed or arbitral award allocating the tax to a co-director; keep it for your civil remedy against him and argue s.179 on its own terms. Remember s.179 reaches only a director, not other group companies, which are distinct legal entities (para 21).
Validity check could not be completed. Later treatment was not checked and no search was made for an appeal to the Supreme Court. The decision does not conflict with the line of cases quashing s.179 orders for want of a finding that the dues cannot be recovered from the company - it accepts that requirement at para 18 and holds it satisfied on the facts - but it is squarely against the argument that the Revenue must establish gross neglect. No source could be cited for that finding. Checking whether an authority still stands matters as much as knowing what it held: a decision may be overruled on one point and survive on another, or the provision it interprets may have been amended since. Read the source and the editor's note on this page before relying on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal.
The judgment runs to 27 numbered paragraphs. Para 1 and para 22 describe the order dated 01.04.2021 as one under s.264, while para 8 calls it a 'revision petition under Section 246'; the s.264 description is the one the judgment proceeds on. Para 11 reproduces paras 12 and 13 of the Gujarat High Court in Ram Prakash Singeshwar Rungta and para 24 reproduces paras 9 and 10 of the Bombay High Court in Manik Dattatreya Lotlikar - those paragraph numbers belong to the quoted judgments, not to this one. Section 179(1) as reproduced by the Court at para 17 still refers to the Companies Act, 1956 and carries no Explanation defining 'tax due'; the library's existing entry on Sanjay Ghai v. ACIT is marked superseded by amendment on precisely that point, and the amending Act and its date were not independently verified on this pass, so do not take the scope of 'tax due' from the text reproduced here. This library shows the verification state of every entry openly. This entry has not yet been read in full by a chartered accountant. The summary reflects the sources listed on this page. Read the source before you rely on it in a reply to an Assessing Officer or in an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The writ petition was dismissed as bereft of merits, with no order as to costs (para 27). Section 179 imposes a vicarious responsibility and must be interpreted rigidly, the primary condition being that the tax dues could not be recovered from the company, on which the Assessing Officer must give a finding (para 18) - a condition satisfied here on the record of demand notices, s.221(1) notices, attachment of bank accounts and partial recovery (paras 20 and 22). The submission that the Revenue must demonstrate that the director was guilty of gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty is contrary to the explicit language of s.179; the burden is on the individual director to prove the contrary (para 23). The MOU, settlement deed and arbitral award govern rights in personam and cannot bind a statutory authority such as the Revenue, and private parties cannot apportion income-tax liability by private agreement (paras 25 and 26). Section 179 permits recovery against a director only, and not against other group companies which are distinct legal entities (para 21).
Every entry in this library links to where it was found, so you can check it yourself rather than take our word for it.
The provision can be read two ways. Which reading wins?
I did not tick s.115BAA in the return and filed Form 10-IC late. Can I still get the concessional rate?
I let the 30 days to appeal my 143(1) intimation lapse. Can I still go to the PCIT under s.264?
I over-reported income by mistake and the time to file a revised return has gone. Can it be fixed?