2024 (8) TMI 505

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....spective assessment orders as detailed below: S.No. W.P.(MD)Nos. Assessment Year Impugned order/date 1. 16664 of 2024 2018-19 DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/156/2023-24/105 9984231(1) dated 22.01.2024 2. 16665 of 2024 2019-20 DIN No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2023-24/106 0132625(1) dated 25.01.2024 3. The specific case of the petitioner is that the Senthil Trading and Co., was initially a Partnership Firm between the deponent's father namely Subramanian Chettiyar, his younger brother namely Senthil Kumar and the deponent and that with effect from 31.03.2007, the said Partnership Firm discontinued the business and the business was carried on by the deponent Ramesh Kumar as the Proprietor. 4. It is farily submitted that t....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....el for the petitioner has placed reliance on a decision of this Court rendered in W.P.No.25812 of 2022 dated 29.08.2023 in the case of Shri Renga Fabrications Private Limited vs. The Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income-Tax Officer, wherein, it was observed as under: "10. Clearly the Impugned Order dated 27.03.2022 is unsustainable as the notice which preceded the Impugned Order have been sent to the E-Mail ID which was no longer in use as BSNL has stopped providing services from April 2019. 11. Considering the above, the Impugned Order dated 27.03.2022 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the respondents to issue a proper notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. In ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... 14. It is submitted that huge transactions have been made to one A.R.R.Poovaraghavan and that the said A.R.R.Poovaraghavan had received a sum of Rs. 752.32 lakhs from M/s.Senthil Trading and Co. 15. It is further submitted that apartfrom the above amount the said A.R.R.Poovaraghavan had also received a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- was also received from the deponent from his individual Bank Account with Syndicate Bank and therefore, the arguments that the petitioner was exposed to unjust tax cannot be countenanced. Hence, prays for dismisal of this Writ Petition. 16. That apart, it is submitted that the notices were also send through speed post on 18.09.2023 and was served at the said address on 05.10.2023. It is therefore submitted that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssing the order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since the petitioner is also assessed to tax individually with the PAN No. AKWPR0604F, the matter would require a detail consideration. 21. Under these circumstances, the Court is inclined to come to the rescue of the petitioner by giving an opportunity to the petitioner to file an appropriate reply to the notices that preceded the respective impugend orders. 22. The impugned orders, which stand quashed, shall be treated as addendum to the show cause notices that preceded the respective impugned orders. 23. The petitioner shall, however, pre-deposit a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rs. 25,00,000/- each) to the credit of the Income Tax Department within a ....