Vinod K. Tiwari v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1) And Ors

16 wp 1485 of 2019.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAYORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1485 OF 2019 Vinod K. Tiwari versus Income Tax Officer, Ward 15(3)(1) and Ors. …Petitioner …Respondents Mr. D.H.Jain, for Petitioner. Mr. Suresh Kumar, for Respondents. CORAM: AKIL KURESHI & S.J. KATHAWALLA, JJ. DATE: 22nd JULY, 2019 P.C.: 1.The Petitioner has challenged an order dated 30[th] December, 2016 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Mumbai, holding that the Petitioner liable to pay the unpaid dues of a company in which he was a director. The Petitioner has also challenged theRevision order dated 28th March, 2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax,dismissing the Petitioner's Revision Petition against the said order dated 30[th]December, 2016. 2.It is undisputed that the Petitioner was one of the directors of one Telesteels India Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company. It appears that the said Company hadsizeable income tax dues for the assessment year 2013-14. Since such dues were notrecovered from the Company, the Assessing Officer in exercise of the powers underSection 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act” for short) issued a show causeSSP 1/3 16 wp 1485 of 2019.doc notice to the Petitioner. Such dues not to be recovered from the Petitioner as adirector of the Company. The case of the Petitioner is that such notice was neverserved to the Petitioner. The Petitioner therefore, had no opportunity to meet with the allegations contained in the said notice. The Petitioner could not participate in theproceedings before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer eventually passed anorder dated 30th December, 2016 which was ex-parte. The Petitioner upon coming tolearn about the order, preferred the Revision Petition before the Commissioner, whichcame to be dismissed. 3.There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner's stand that theshow cause notice was never served on him, is incorrect. The Respondents have filedReply; however not denied this averment of the Petitioner. Before the Commissioneralso, the Petitioner had taken the said ground. The Commissioner has not held thatthe notice was duly served on the Petitioner. Under the circumstances, we find thatthe entire proceedings have been completed in breach of natural justice. Only of thisground, we are inclined to set aside both the orders. However, this will not preventthe Department from serving the show cause notice on the Petitioner and proceedingfurther thereafter in accordance with law. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner statedthat Petitioner's current address is as mentioned in the cause title of this Petition,which is as under : “Vinod K. Tiwari (PAN : ), SSP 2/3 Occ – Service, Age 49 years, an Individual, Residing at Sawal Ram, Raj Kumar, 9, Ramkumar Rakhit Lane, Burabazar, Kolkatta-700007.” 4.Learned Counsel for the Department gives a copy of such notice to theCounsel of the Petitioner, who accepts the same for and on behalf of the Petitioner.This would constitute a valid service of notice on the Petitioner. The Petitionerwould have four weeks time from today to file his Reply to such show cause notice. Itwould be open for the Department to proceed further thereafter in accordance withlaw unmindful of the observations made by the Commissioner in the impugned order. 5.The Writ Petition is disposed of in above terms. ( S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. ) ( AKIL KURESHI, J. ) SSP 3/3