9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1063X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ements of Section 176 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after partnership firm purportedly ceased to exist and discontinued with the business. There is also a failure on the part of the petitioner to give in the details of the account Nos. of the partnership firm while responding to the show cause notice issued under Section 147 of the Act, vide reply dated 22.03.2022. However, the impugned order is bereft of details. Before confirming the taxable income and the tax due, it was incumbent for the respondent to have given detailed reasons. It merely states that quantum of Rs. 1,79,56,157/- had escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2017-18 and find faults with the petitioner for not giving proper details. Considering the above, the impugn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1,63,91,100/- and interest income of Rs. 1,65,057/- in F.Y.2-2016-17 but failed to file the return of income declaring the above transaction for the AY 2017-18. The quantum of Rs. 1,79,56,157/- is escaped assessment for the A.Y 2017-18. Subsequently, the case was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income Tax Act and notice u/s 148 dated 19.03.2021 was issued and served. But there was no record of filing return of income u/s. 148 of the I.T Act in the e-filing portal. The penalty proceedings u/s 271F of the I.,T. Act is initiated separately for non-filing of return of income. Thereafter, notice u/s 142(1) of the I.T.Act, 1961 dated 20.09.2021 and 31.01.2022 were issued and served upon the assessee through e-mail. But the assessee did not compli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, the said partnership firm was constituted in the year 1972 with two partners namely, petitioner and petitioner's father. The petitioner s father died on 18.01.2012 and thus the partnership stood dissolved on the same day by operation of law. 4. It is the specific case of the petitioner that the petitioner had intimated about the death of the petitioner's father, in his response dated 22.03.2022 to show cause notice dated 19.03.2022 issued under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The first respondent has however passed the impugned order without considering the reply. 5. That apart, it is submitted that after the death of the petitioner s father, petitioner has carried on business of the firm in his individual cap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , it is submitted no returns of income was also filed under Section 139 of the Income Tax Act and therefore the impugned order was passed. It is therefore submitted that the impugned order does not call for any interference. 10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senor Standing Counsel for the respondents. 11. No doubt there is a failure on the part of the petitioner to have complied with the requirements of Section 176 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after partnership firm purportedly ceased to exist and discontinued with the business. There is also a failure on the part of the petitioner to give in the details of the account Nos. of the partnership firm while responding to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
