Amit Tak Son Of Shri Anil Tak v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, Incometax Department, Room

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 Of63, Umaid Heritage, Jodhpur 342 001 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, IncomeTax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, StatueCircle, JaipurTax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, StatueCircle, Jaipur 2. Geetanjali Hotels And Promoters Private Limited, HavingIts Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali,Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, RajasthanThrough Director Anil Tak, C/o Amit Mundra, Ca, 134,Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, RajasthanIts Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali,Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, RajasthanThrough 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/oAmit Mundra, Ca, 134, Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar,Jaipur, Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 2, IncomeTax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, StatueCircle, JaipurTax Department, Room No. 310, Ncr Building, StatueCircle, Jaipur 2. Union Of India, Tax Recovery Officer -I, Room No. B-07,Central Revenue Building, Statue Circle, JaipurCentral Revenue Building, Statue Circle, Jaipur 3. Geetanjali Hotels And Promoters Private Limited, HavingIts Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali,Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, RajasthanThrough Director Anil Tak, C/o Amit Mundra, Ca, 134,Girnar Colony (South), Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur, RajasthanIts Registered Office Earlier At House No. 41, Geetanjali,Sanjay Marg, Hathroi Fort Jaipur-302001, RajasthanThrough 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 KasliwalMr. Rajat SharmaMr. Vikram SinghMs. Suruchi KasliwalMr. Rajat SharmaMr. Vikram Singh For Respondent(s): HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR 06/02/2025 Order 1.These petitions are being decided by common order as thefacts involved are similar. For convenience, the facts are beingtaken from D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.12994/2020. 2.This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 13.03.2018passed under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short‘the Act’). 3.The brief facts are that the petitioner was director ofGeetanjali Hotels & Promoters Private Limited (hereinafter referredto as ‘the company’). The demand against the company under theAct was created for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 and2015-16. As per case of the department, on failure to recover theamount from the company, proceedings were initiated against theDirector under Section 179 of the Act. Hence, the present petition. 4.During the arguments, it is revealed that for assessmentyear 2015-16, the order creating the demand against thecompany was set aside by the commissioner under Section 263 ofthe Act and the matter was remanded. 5.As per the counsel appearing for the department, theappeals pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 ofthe Company have been disposed of by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. 6.Since much water has flown during the pendency of thepetition. 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 isset aside and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur to decide the issue afresh in viewof the subsequent development. The petitions are accordinglydisposed of. 5.As per the counsel appearing for the department, theappeals pertaining to assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 ofthe Company have been disposed of by the Income Tax AppellateTribunal. 6.Since much water has flown during the pendency of thepetition. 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 isset aside and the matter is remitted back to Deputy Commissionerof Income Tax, Circle 2, Jaipur to decide the issue afresh in viewof the subsequent development. The petitions are accordinglydisposed of. 7.It is clarified that setting aside of the order shall not beconstrued as an opinion on the merits of the case. 8.In order to avoid further delay, let the petitioner personallyor through representatives remain present in the office ofrespondent No.1 on 06.03.2025 at 11:00 a.m. (PRAMIL KUMAR MATHUR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Simple Kumawat /57-58