9911796707
TMI Blog1989 (12) TMI 17X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... um of Rs. 35,475 was due from the petitioner's mother by name Annapoorani by way of tax arrears payable by Amudham Enterprises in which she was a partner. It is not in dispute that under the dissolution deed of the partnership, the petitioner's mother had to discharge the income-tax liability. According to the Department, the petitioner herein who is the daughter of the assessee was liable to pay ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... om the bank. After hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the view that the following order will meet the ends of justice : Whether the petitioner has received notice under section 226 or not, the Department shall now hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner owes the amount to her mother as contended by the Department. The first respondent shall commence the enquiry on December 20, 1988, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988, a sum of Rs. 25,000 was deposited by the petitioner in her bank account and when the petitioner issued a cheque for Rs. 23,375 to one Mr. C. Panchanathan, the bank returned the cheque on the ground that the income-tax attachment order is in force. Therefore, the cheque was not cleared. In order to safeguard the interests of the Department as well as the petitioner, I direct that the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
