9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 821X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the respondents Income Tax Officer and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax through counsel. We heard learned counsel for both sides. 2. Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows. 2.1 The present petitioner alongwith his father and brother constituted a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Kapoor Electric Mart by way of partnership deed dated 20.04.1982 and started business under PAN Card bearing No. AAAFK4540P. After death of their father, the petitioner and his brother executed fresh partnership deed and continued the business under the same PAN Card No. AAAFK4 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imports of Rs. 1,42,12,689/- with assessable value of Rs. 2,23,95,361/- during Financial Year 2015-16 but no return of income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 had been filed. 2.4 The petitioner as sole proprietor of Kapoor Electric Mart submitted detailed reply dated 11.03.2023, making reference to the above mentioned facts of conversion of the erstwhile partnership firm followed by business of the sole proprietorship concern under PAN AASPK4955A and also stating that the transactions referred to in the notices under Section 148A(b) of the Act were duly recorded in the books maintained by the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted the supporting documents, viz. copies of acknowledgement of return of income of Kapoor Electric Mart for As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had been admittedly filing returns of income as sole proprietor of Kapoor Electric Mart and that mention of PAN of the partnership firm in the bill of entry was a bonafide mistake insofar as petitioner had not concealed the purchases (imports) in the books of the proprietorship concern. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents revenue submitted that the petitioner ought to have informed the dissolution of the erstwhile partnership firm and it appears to be a case of deliberate concealment by the petitioner. However, it was not disputed that such an order and notice passed and issued against a non-entity cannot be enforced. 5. On the first date of hearing (24.04.2023), in response to a specific query as to whether the inti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
