ALEX CHERIAN Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is one and the same in all these three cases pertaining to 3 different assessment years, 1993 -94, 1994 -95and 1995 -96. The challenge is mainly against Exts. P2, P3 and P4 proceedings/orders taken/issued by the departmental authorities, under the Income -tax Act, whereby the petitioner who was the Director of a Private Limited Company, has been proceeded against, in respect of the amount due from the Company, invoking the provision under Section 179 of the 'Act'.

(2.) WITH regard to the sequence of events; it is to be noted that the assessment orders were passed in respect of the assessment years 1993 -94, 1994 -95 and 1995 -96, which were subjected to challenge by the assessee -company, by filing appeals before the Income -tax Appellate Tribunal. Having lost the battle before the Tribunal, three different appeals were preferred before this Court, as ITA 2 of 2005, ITA 9 of 2005 and ITA 12 of 2005. When the appeals were being heard in June 2008, the appellant -company made a submission that, they might be permitted to proceed with the steps for settlement by approaching the Settlement Commissioner. Considering the prayer made in this regard, the appeals were closed by this Court, permitting the appellant to approach the Settlement Commissioner and accordingly, necessary proceedings were filed before the Settlement Commissioner, calling for his intervention in the matter. However, the applications were rejected by the Settlement Commissioner, holding that his jurisdiction was not attracted, as no proceeding was 'pending' before the authorities under the Income -tax Department.

(3.) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in response to the notice dated 23 -8 -2006 issued to the petitioner in his capacity as the Director of the Company, a detailed statement of objection was submitted. However, without considering the same in the proper perspective, Ext. P2 order was passed by the second respondent, turning down the case projected by the petitioner. Aggrieved by Ext. P2, the petitioner preferred a Revision Petition before the first respondent and after considering the entire facts and figures, the first respondent passed Ext. P3 order, upholding Ext. P2 and observing that, the case projected by the petitioner was wrong and misconceived in all respects. The petitioner is challenging Exts. P2 and P3 orders along with the consequential proceedings, to the extent they have adversely affected the petitioner.