2024 (10) TMI 543

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Raval for the respondent. 2. Rule, returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Mr. Karan Sanghani for the respondent waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondent. 3. Having regard to the controversy in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 4. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs : "(A)This Hon'ble Court be pleased to call for the records of the proceedings, look into them and be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order u/s 148A (d) dated 20.03.2023 at An....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nted out by the petitioner that the Bank of Baroda has committed a mistake by writing wrong PAN as the petitioner is the sole proprietor of the firm having PAN No. AORPP8404L after dissolution of the partnership firm. It was also pointed out that the Bank Account is also not changed by the Bank and therefore, the Bank mistakenly furnished the information of the firm for the financial year 2018-19 in old PAN No. AAFFP3449M instead of newly updated PAN No. of the petitioner being proprietor of the firm. The respondent, however, without considering the contention of the petitioner that the notice under Section 148 was issued on a dissolved firm, passed an order dated 19th March, 2023 under Section 148A (d) of the Act on the ground that income ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..../s 148 of the Act for Assessment Year 2019- 20." 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Rushin Patel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could not have passed the impugned order holding that this is a fit case to reopen the assessment as the entire proceedings is against the dissolved partnership firm. It was further submitted that even otherwise on merits, the cash withdrawn was to make the payments to Farmers by the petitioner and the same could not lead to the escapement of income. 6.2. It was therefore submitted that the petitioner has given all the details to the respondent with regard to the withdrawal of cash from the bank account of the petitioner which was duly reflected in the books of accounts as well as the return of income f....