https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341442 A concluded determination identifying the petitioner as proprietor of the concern could not be reopened in writ proceedings on a bare denial of proprietorship or an unproven plea of forgery. The High Court noted consistent documentary material, including statutory returns and information obtained from the Income-tax Department, which supported the authorities' case. As the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation of forgery or show the enquiry was conducted in the manner alleged, the recovery proceedings against the property standing in his name were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. en-us Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:35:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341442 A concluded determination identifying the petitioner as proprietor of the concern could not be reopened in writ proceedings on a bare denial of proprietorship or an unproven plea of forgery. The High Court noted consistent documentary material, including statutory returns and information obtained from the Income-tax Department, which supported the authorities' case. As the petitioner failed to substantiate the allegation of forgery or show the enquiry was conducted in the manner alleged, the recovery proceedings against the property standing in his name were upheld and the writ petition was dismissed. Case-Laws Income Tax Thu, 23 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341442