2020 (3) TMI 342

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....India vs. M/s Sundarlal Anand Kumar and another) under Sections 276C, 277, 278 of I.T. Act, pending before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Meerut as well as stay the operation of N.B.W. passed by the court below in the aforesaid case. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that the applicant no.1 and his father, namely, late Sundar Lal, jointly constituted a partnership for conducting business in the name of applicant no.2, M/s Sundar Lal Anand Kumar (hereinafter referred as applicants' firm). The applicants' firm is in the business of wholesale of households goods and is a dealer of products of Hindustan Unilevers, Parley Biscuits, Nippo Cells etc. On 25.11.1983, the Income Tax Department conducted a ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

...............Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this petition is disposed of finally with the observation that the petitioner may move application / objection before the court, concerned raising his grievances and the contentions and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate may dispose of the same expeditiously by a reasoned order in accordance with law. Accordingly, it is directed that if the application/ objection is filed by the petitioner, within 8 weeks from today, the same shall be considered and disposed of expeditiously by a reasoned order as indicated above. However, till the disposal of such application / objection the petitioner shall not be required to appear in person and shall be permitted to app....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the applicants' firm and there were no records available in the office of the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Meerut to show that any such penalty exists against the applicants' firm as is evident from page 103 of the application. Learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the applicants and submitted that the report regarding penalty for the assessment year 1983-84, which is annexed at page 103 is with respect to the Proprietor, Anand Kumar Jain and not with respect to the applicants' firm. It has further been submitted that in pursuance of the order dated 16.04.1999, a detailed application was moved by the applicants but various ground regarding whether any penalty ex....