Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 21065 Mad
Judgement Date : 5 November, 2024
W.A.No.2506 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2024
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R. SURESH KUMAR
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. SARAVANAN
W.A.No.2506 of 2024
Income Tax Officer
Corporate Ward 6(3)
No.121, Mahatma Gandhi Road
Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. .. Appellant
Vs.
Pandian Anbalagan
Plot No.2, Door No.3, White filed
Kamarajar Nagar, Mathavaram
Chennai – 600 051. .. Respondent
Prayer: Appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against
the order dated 03.10.2023 in W.P.No.11841 of 2022.
For the Appellant : Mr.V.Mahalingam
and Ms.N.Premalatha
For the Respondents : Ms.Amritha Sathyajth
for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was authored by C.SARAVANAN, J.) This intra-Court appeal has been directed against the order
dated 03.10.2023 made in W.P.No.11841 of 2022.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
2. The said writ petition has been filed by the Director of
M/s.Speed and Safe Freight Systems India Private Limited. It
appears that the said Company has been struck off from the official
Register of Companies, perhaps on account of the defaults
committed by the Director. The arguments before the Writ Court
was that the Company ceased to exist as it has been struck off
from the Register of Companies.
3. Before the Writ Court, the learned Senior Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondent Revenue had cited Section
176 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, interpreting Section
176 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 252 of the
Companies Act, 2013, the learned Writ Court has set aside the
assessment order.
4. We have heard Mr.V.Mahalingam and Ms.N.Premalatha,
learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Amritha Sathyajth,
learned counsel appearing for Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned
counsel for the respondent.
5. We are of the view that the order is liable to be set aside.
It is not open for the Director of a defaulting Company, whose
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
name is struck off from the official Register of Companies, to set
aside the order. If at all, it was open for the petitioner herein to
revive the Company and thereafter espouse the cause of the
Company. As far as the independent rights of the Director under
Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is concerned, it is open
for the respondent to defend itself if any proceedings are initiated
under Section 179 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
6. The writ appeal, accordingly, stands allowed with the
above observations. There shall be no order as to costs.
(R.S.K., J.) (C.S.N, J)
05.11.2024
Neutral Citation:Yes/No
drm
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
R. SURESH KUMAR, J.
AND C. SARAVANAN, J.
(drm)
05.11.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Publish Your Article
Campus Ambassador
Media Partner
Campus Buzz
LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026
LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!