Dismissing the writ the Court held that the order passed under section 179(1) of the Act dated January 29, 2018, as well as the order passed under section 264 dated April 1, 2021 clearly demonstrated that only a small part of the demand was recovered despite all possible efforts by the Department including attachment of bank accounts of the group of companies. The memorandum of understanding, settlement deed and arbitral award governed rights in personam and could not bind a statutory authority like the Revenue. The orders were valid. (AY. 2006-07 to 2009-10)
Rajeev Behl v. PCIT (2021) 438 ITR 612 / 206 DTR 390/ 323 CTR 71/(2022)) 284 Taxman 128 (Delhi)(HC)
S. 179 : Private company-Liability of directors-Recovery of tax-Burden on director to prove that non-recovery of dues from company was not due to his gross negligence or misfeasance-Agreement amongst directors not binding on-revenue-Recovery proceedings was held to be valid-Interpretation-Difference between Rights in Personam and Rights in Rem. [S. 246, 264, Art. 226]