5-wp 5360-19.odt 1/2 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO.5360 OF 2019 Aditya Vijay Salankar .-Vs.- Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-1 and anr. Office notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's Orders. or directions and Registrar's orders. Mr. Saket Bhattad, counsel for petitioner. Mr.Anand Parchure, counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2. CORAM : R.K.DESHPANDE & VINAY JOSHI, JJ. DATE : 3.10.2019. 1. notice under Section 179(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to petitioner informing him that income tax dues of Rs.17,04,743/- are outstanding against Nirmiti Gaurav Infrastructure Private Limited of which petitioner is one of Director. notice further states that this demand could not be recovered from Company and petitioner in capacity as director is jointly and severally liable along with Company to pay amount of tax, penalty or other sum payable by Company for assessment years 2013 and 2014. 2. response of petitioner to said notice was that petitioner was no more director and therefore, provision of section 179(1) cannot be invoked. Income Tax Officer adjudicated defence on 16.3.2018 holding that at relevant time petitioner was director during period under consideration. In Appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax, it is findings recorded that mere denial of fact that petitioner was actively involved in day to day affairs of company is not enough. Appellate Authority finds that Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2019 12:22:37 ::: 5-wp 5360-19.odt 2/2 petitioner had signed resolution and due efforts were made to recover demands from Company and it is only thereafter, action under section 179(1) of Income Tax Act was taken. 3. Both these orders are subject matter of challenge in this petition. We find that it was not defence raised in response to notice under section 179(1) by petitioner that there were no steps taken for recovery of dues from Company. petitioner did not ask for details of steps taken to recover dues from Company. only defence was that petitioner was not director of Company at relevant time and it was also not defence raised that non recovery can not be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to affairs of Company. All these points were vaguely raised in appeal before Commissioner, which Commissioner has turned down. 4. We do not find any reason to interfere in order impugned. Hence, this writ petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE Kavita ::: Uploaded on - 04/10/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 15/10/2019 12:22:37 ::: Aditya Vijay Salankar v. Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-1 and anr