On a writ petition challenging the orders passed under section 179 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 holding the assessee liable for taxes allegedly due from company in which he was a director and the revision order passed under section 264 for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10,  allowing the petition the Court held that  the assessee had sufficiently discharged the burden cast upon him under section 179(1) to absolve him from the liability thereunder since he had brought on record material to show lack of financial control, lack of decision-making power and limited role in the defaulting company while he was director and the entire decision-making process had been with the directors appointed by the largest shareholder. It was therefore imperative for the authorities to have considered them and to have reasonably concluded under section 179(1). Both the Income-tax Officer and the revisional authority had mainly proceeded on the basis that the assessee was director during the relevant assessment years when the default had occurred and did not consider whether there was any gross neglect or misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company “in the context of non-recovery of tax dues”. No material was produced by the Income-tax Officer contrary to the material placed on record by the assessee based on which he could be held to be guilty of gross neglect or misfeasance or breach of duty in the context of non-recovery of tax dues. Therefore, the orders to the effect that the assessee as director of the company had failed to prove that non-recovery of tax could not be attributed to any gross neglect or misfeasance or breach of duty on the assessee’s part were unsustainable. The orders were also vitiated on the touchstone of procedural fairness since the Department had initiated action after a long period of about eight years. Followed  Geetha P. Kamat v. PCIT (2023) 455 ITR 234 (Bom)(HC)  AY.2008-09, 2009-10)