TMI Blog1997 (5) TMI 13X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The petitioner has deposited Rs. 4,79,000 against various fixed deposit receipts with respondent No. 2-bank as per details, annexure-A. Respondent No. 1-Income-tax Officer, D-Ward, Indore, by notice dated October 21, 1987 (annexure-R1-F), issued under section 226(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has required respondent No. 2-bank to pay Rs. 2,06,659 towards incom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been duly issued and is not amenable to interference by this court in writ jurisdiction. At the outset, I have to observe that this petition involves disputed questions of fact inasmuch as, according to the petitioner, the assessee is a Hindu undivided family business concern with which he has no connection while, on the other hand, the contention of respondent No. 1 is that the assessee is a p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the petitioner, partner. However, as all these facts are disputed, I decline to enter into their merits and dismiss the petition as not tenable with liberty to the petitioner to resort to such remedy as may be available to him in law. There shall be no order as to the costs of this petition and the security deposit, if any, shall be refunded to the petitioner after due verification. - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
