In response to show cause notice the petitioner contended that she was not guilty of any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on her part in relation to the affaires of the company. The Assessing Officer passed the order under section 179 of the Act treating the petitioner as defaulter for not paying the tax due from the Company. The petitioner filed revision application under section 264 of the Act. Commissioner rejected the revision application on the ground that the petitioner was director and hence liable. On writ the Court held that the Assessing Officer has not specifically held that the petitioner to be guilty of gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on part in relation to the affairs of the company. Not a single incident decision or action has been highlighted by the Assessing Officer, which would be treated as an act of gross neglect, breach of duty or malfeasance which would have remotest potential of resulting in non- recovery of tax due in future. Accordingly the order of the Assessing Officer and rejecting the order under section 264 of the Act was quashed. Relied on Maganbhai Hansrajbhai Patel v. ACIT ( 2012) 211 Taxman 386 / 2013] 353 ITR 567 ( Guj)( HC), Ram Praksh Singeshwar Runta v. ITO (2015) 370 ITR 641 (Guj.)(HC) ( AY. 2008 -09, 2009 -10)