Only if the company was a private company, only if the tax genuinely cannot be recovered from the company, and only if you fail to prove that the non-recovery is not attributable to your gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty. Section 167C does the same job for partners of an LLP in liquidation.
Section 179 is the department's route around the corporate veil, and it is narrower than it is usually treated as being. It applies where tax due from a private company for a previous year cannot be recovered. Every person who was a director of that private company at any time during the relevant previous year is then jointly and severally liable — unless he proves 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. The Explanation makes 'tax due' wide: it takes in penalty, interest, fee and any other sum payable under the Act.
Two conditions have to be satisfied before the burden ever shifts to the director. The company must be a private company — the section does not reach directors of public companies, and sub-section (2) carves out assessments for years before 1 April 1962 where a private company later became public. And the tax must be one that 'cannot be recovered'. That is a finding, not an assumption. The department is expected to show what it did against the company itself and why that failed, before it starts on the individual.
Once those are established, the burden is on the director, and it is a specific burden. He has to show the non-recovery is not attributable to his gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty in relation to the affairs of the company. The Bombay High Court has held that this must be assessed in the context of the non-recovery of the tax, not as a general audit of how well the company was run, and that an order which 'merely proceeded on the basis that the petitioner was a Director during the assessment years' without really considering whether there was gross neglect or misfeasance cannot stand.
Procedurally, an order under s.179 is a quasi-judicial order with civil consequences. It needs a show cause notice, a genuine opportunity to answer, and a reasoned order that engages with the director's actual defence rather than reciting the section. Courts have also treated very long delay — action taken years after the events, when the person had long ceased to be a director — as a procedural unfairness in its own right. Cases in this area include Satish D. Sanghavi v. Union of India, Maganbhai Hansrajbhai Patel v. ACIT and Narinder Singh v. Union of India.
Section 167C does the parallel job for limited liability partnerships. Notwithstanding the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, where tax due from an LLP for any previous year cannot be recovered, every person who was a partner at any time during that previous year is jointly and severally liable, unless he proves 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 LLP. The escape clause is worded identically to s.179, and the same Explanation about penalty and interest applies.
So what a notice under either section has to establish, and what you should test it against, is a short list: the correct entity type; a demand that is actually outstanding and quantified; concrete steps taken against the entity and their failure; that you held office in the relevant previous year; and reasons responding to your explanation. A notice that establishes only that you were a director and that money is owed has not done the work the section requires.
A s.179 order turns a company's liability into a personal one, enforceable by attachment of your own bank accounts and property under s.222 and the Second Schedule. People who resigned years ago are routinely served, and because the burden of proof sits on the director, silence is fatal. The defences are real but they have to be put on record at the show-cause stage.
My assessment was reduced in appeal after the officer had already sent a recovery certificate to the Collector and my property was attached. Can he carry on with the old certificate?
The TRO has attached property the defaulter transferred years ago and calls the transfer void. Can he do that?
Under s.179 the burden is on me to disprove gross neglect. Does the Tax Recovery Officer have to deal with what I say?
Can the department recover a private company's tax from you personally as a director?
I bought a property at the liquidator's e-auction. The Income Tax Department had attached it before the liquidation started and the Sub-Registrar will not register my sale deed. Where do I stand?
My years are before June 2013. Can the department still say the Explanation to s.179 makes me liable for the company's interest and penalty?
The first I knew of the s.179 order was when my bank account was attached. Nobody ever gave me a notice. Is that enough to get it set aside?
The department wants to recover the company's tax dues from me because I was a director. Can they?
Every page in this library links to what it was written from, so you can check it rather than take our word for it.