AMIT TAK, SON OF SHRI ANIL TAK V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

CW/12994/2020

AI Insights

The case involves two petitions filed by Amit Tak and Anil Tak against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax and Geetanjali Hotels and Promoters Private Limited. The petitions challenge the orders passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which held the directors of the company liable for the company's tax dues for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2015-16. The court consolidated the petitions due to the similarity of facts and proceedings. It was revealed during the proceedings that the demand for the assessment year 2015-16 had been set aside by the commissioner under Section 263 of the Act, and the appeals for the other years had been disposed of by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. Consequently, the court set aside the order under Section 179 and remitted the matter back for a fresh decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 671024 (HC-RAJASTHAN)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 06-02-2025
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: ANUROOP SINGHI; N S BHATI
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY JHANWAR; SURUCHI KASLIWAL; RAJAT SHARMA; VIKRAM SINGH; ANIKA ANNA
• Keywords: Assessment years; Director's Liability; Income Tax; Income tax appellate tribunal; Demand Creation
• Section: 263; 179

Judgement Text

"[2025:RJ-JP:5216-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12994/2020 Amit Tak son Of Shri Anil Tak, Aged About 34 Years, Resident Of 63, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur 342 001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Income Tax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Geetanjali Hotels And Promoters Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan Through Director Anil Tak, C/o Amit Mundra, Ca, 134, Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12996/2020 Anil Tak, Son Of Mr. Chiranji Lal Tak, Aged About 56 Years, C/o Amit Mundra, Ca, 134, Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Income Tax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 2. Union Of India, Tax Recovery Officer -I, Room No. B-07, Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 3. Geetanjali Hotels And Promoters Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali, Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, Rajasthan Through Director Anil Tak, C/o Amit Mundra, Ca, 134, Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Suruchi Kasliwal Mr. Rajat Sharma Mr. Vikram Singh [2025:RJ-JP:5216-DB] (2 of 3) [CW-12994/2020] Ms. Anika Anna For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR Order 06/02/2025 1. 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’). 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. 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] 6. 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. 7. It is clarified that setting aside of the order shall not be construed as an opinion on the merits of the case. 8. 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 "