TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 199X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... resigned from the partnership firm and therefore, the partnership firm was no longer in existence. After the dissolution deed was signed, no steps were taken by the petitioner's husband (late) Sripal Kumar Jain to make changes in the Bank Accounts maintained by the partnership firm to state that the firm continued to exist and that the business of the firm was being carried on by him as the sole proprietor. Also petitioner's Late husband died on 07.09.2021. The proceedings came to be initiated only after the death of assessee with the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A portion of the notice issued u/s142(1) thus remains unanswered although they were posted in their web portal in accordance with the provi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fect from 31.03.2011. 3. It is further case of the petitioner that her husband (late) Sripal Kumar Jain, who died on 07.09.2021 was carrying on business of the partnership firm in the same name as a proprietor. It is further submitted that the petitioner's husband (Late) Sripal Kumar Jain continued to file regular income tax returns as an assessee and was being assessed to income tax on the income. 4. It is submitted that the only mistake that appears to have been committed by the petitioner's late husband was that the PAN number of the firm which stood dissolved on the said date was continued to be used by her husband (late) Sripal Kumar Jain while carrying on business after petitioner ceased to be a partner. 5. That apart ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 11. It is submitted that only a partial reply was given to the show cause notice which was not convincing and therefore, an order has been passed by adding the amounts to a sum of Rs.9.41 crores as undisclosed income (from equity transactions) and Rs.6.4 crores as unexplained investment (by way of cash deposit) under Section 69 r/w Section 115 BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. It is further submitted that the petitioner has alternative remedy by way of an appeal before the Appellate Commissioner and therefore, n this ground also, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition. 13. I have considered the arguments adv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18. Considering the above, Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order and remits the case back to the respondent to pass a fresh order on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is directed to file all the documents that were called for in pursuant to the notice issued under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and give a proper reply to the various show cause notices issued to the petitioner. 19. The petitioner is directed to co-operate with the respondent. The respondent shall scrutinize all the documents and pass a fair order on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to state that before passing such order, the petitioner s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
