9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (10) TMI 543X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing Officer about such fact. In view of the settled legal position as held by the Hon ble Apex Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited [ 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] the impugned notice and the order are required to be quashed and set aside. Assessee appeal allowed. - HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA AND HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE MAUNA M. BHATT Appearance: For the Petitioner(s) No. 1: Mr Rushin Patel (13690). For the Respondent(s) No. 1: Mrs Kalpana K Raval (1046). ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Rushin Patel for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for learned advocate Mrs. Kalpana K. Raval for the respondent. 2. Rule, returnable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eafter, the partnership firm was converted into proprietorship firm of the petitioner. 5.2. The petitioner therefore did not reply to the said notice. The respondent thereafter issued the notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act on 9th February, 2023 on the ground that the said firm had withdrawn the cash amount of Rs. 2 crore 80 lakhs from the Bank of Baroda on the basis of the annual information received by the insight portal under the category NMS cases as per RMS CYCLE-2. The petitioner by reply dated 20th February, 2023 contended that the partnership firm has been dissolved with effect from 31st March, 2016 and is not in operation from 1st April, 2016. It was also pointed out by the petitioner that the Bank of Baroda has committed a mi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of cash withdrawals. Therefore, in the light of the above reasons, information and material available on record, I am of the considered view that the assessee has failed to explain the above mentioned transactions of Rs.68,56,594/- and income earned/ derived there from, during the year under consideration and the same remained unexplained and unsubstantiated as per the relevant provisions of the Act. Hence, on the basis of material available on record which establish that the income chargeable to tax in respect of above mentioned unexplained transactions of Rs.68,56,594/- has escaped assessment for FY 2018-19 and therefore, this is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2019- 20. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to initiate the proceedings against the petitioner in accordance with law. 8. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties, it appears that the respondent-Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice under Section 148A (b) of the Act in the name of the partnership firm having PAN No. AAFFP3449M as well as passed the order under Section 148A (d) of the Act against the said firm which has already been resolved with effect from 31st March, 2016. 9. In view of the undisputed fact about the dissolution of firm and the issuance of notice in name of the dissolved firm, the impugned notice and the order would not be tenable more particularly, when the petitioner has in reply to the notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
