9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 402X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... argued. 2. This Petition under Article 226 impugns notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (Act) dated 31st March 2021 purportedly issued by Respondent No. 1 proposing to reassess the income for the AY 2015-16 on an abandoned Permanent Account Number (PAN) that was issued wrongly to the Petitioner as company instead of a Partnership Firm. It also impugns the order dated 30th March 2022 under section (u/s) 147 r.w.s. 144 and the demand notices dated 30th March 2022 u/s 156, 31st March 2022 u/s 274 read with (r/w) 271B and 31st March 2022 u/s 274 r/w 271F of the Act. FACTS: 3. The Petitioner is a Partnership Firm engaged in the business of trading in stainless steel since 1983. It is stated that presently, Mr. Mahendra Suraj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o show cause why 18,58,84,574/- on Rs. account of bill of entry for imports (custom) should not be treated as their income. The Petitioner was expected to reply on or before 28th March 2022 since the assessment proceeding was getting time barred on 31st March 2022. 5. It is stated that as the Petitioner had no access to the e-filing portal, on Monday 28th March 2022 the Chartered Accountant (CA) was consulted and on 29th March 2022 the CA and partner visited the Income Tax Office. A response was accordingly prepared only on 30th March 2022 giving all requisite details. It is stated that, all the bills of entry mentioned in the information summary provided by the AO were accounted for and taxes were paid on the profits computed under the co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reply whether or not the Petitioner has filed any return of income on the wrong PAN since issued and as to when they stopped filing return of income under the wrong PAN as they possess this information. This exercise, in our view, could have enabled the department to issue the notice to the registered email address of the assessee and sent an alert on the registered mobile number and prevented the consequences. 9. Be that as it may, the Respondent No. 1 has admittedly failed to follow up after the 30 days' time period that expired pursuant to the issuance of the notice on 31st March 2021. In our view, this whole process could have been avoided had the Respondent No. 1 taken the steps in May 2021, that he took on 25th March 2022 or at least ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
