High Court quashes Assessing Officer's notice canceling partnership firm registration under Income-tax Act

The High Court of Allahabad quashed the notice issued by the Assessing Officer seeking to cancel the registration of a partnership firm under the Income-tax Act for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80. The court criticized the assumption that one partner was a benamidar of his father as perverse and lacking evidence, noting discrepancies in the Tribunal's orders. The court found the Assessing Officer's actions mala fide and awarded costs to the petitioner, ultimately ruling in favor of the firm.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to cancellation of registration under Income-tax Act for assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80 based on alleged benami transaction.

In this judgment delivered by the High Court of Allahabad, the petitioner, a partnership firm registered under the Income-tax Act, challenged a notice issued by the Assessing Officer under section 185 of the Act, seeking to cancel the firm's registration for the assessment years 1974-75 to 1979-80. The petitioner contended that the funds invested in the firm by one of the partners, Arvind Kumar Gupta, were incorrectly assumed to have come from his father, Virendra Pal Gupta, instead of his uncle, Harsh Nandan Gupta. The court noted that the Department believed Arvind Kumar Gupta to be a benamidar of his father. The petitioner filed a writ petition and obtained a stay on further proceedings. The court observed that no counter-affidavit was filed in response to the petition. The petitioner submitted a supplementary affidavit along with a copy of the Tribunal's order for the assessment years 1973-74 and 1974-75, showing that additions to Virendra Pal Gupta's income were deleted by the Tribunal, affirming the source of the gifted funds. The court noted discrepancies in the Tribunal's deletions of certain additions and emphasized that merely providing funds to a son for investment does not make the son a benamidar. The court criticized the Assessing Officer's assumption as perverse and mala fide, lacking any indication or evidence to support the claim that Arvind Kumar Gupta was a benamidar of his father. The court highlighted the absence of any action initiated for subsequent years by the Assessing Officer and concluded that the impugned notice was quashed, with costs awarded to the petitioner.

---