9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (3) TMI 931 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - proceedings against the dissolved entity - notice in the name of petitioner LLP stood dissolved - writ petition has been filed on behalf of the dissolved LLP by wife of the deceased - HELD THAT - The more substantial point that Mr Gupta has raised is that proceedings taken out against the dissolved entity i.e., Lotus Law Partners LLP, cannot continue; a submission with which we cannot but agree. Given this position, the impugned notices and order are set aside. Liberty is, however, given to AO to issue to Ms Ragini Mohan, who is the Legal Representative (LR) of the deceased managing partner fresh notice u/s 148A(b) of the Act.
Issues involved: Challenge to notice and order u/s 148A(b) and 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequential notice u/s 148 for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19.
Challenge to Notice and Order u/s 148A(b) and 148A(d): The writ petition challenged the notice dated 14.03.2022 issued u/s 148A(b) and the order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Additionally, a challenge was laid to the consequential notice dated 31.03.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act for AY 2018-19. The petitioner LLP was dissolved on 22.02.2022, and it was argued that the impugned notice was issued to an entity that no longer existed. The petitioner's counsel contended that the information about the dissolution was provided to the revenue only on 09.03.2023, and the managing partner of the dissolved LLP had passed away on 01.05.2021. The writ petition was filed by the wife of the deceased managing partner. The court noted the error in the framing of the petition but proceeded with the case. It was held that proceedings against the dissolved entity cannot continue, and thus, the impugned notices and order were set aside. The Assessing Officer was granted liberty to issue a fresh notice to the Legal Representative of the deceased partner within two weeks, allowing time for a reply and a personal hearing. The AO was directed to take further steps as deemed fit, clarifying that limitation would not hinder the revenue due to the peculiar circumstances of the case. The writ petition was disposed of accordingly.
|
