Case Law Details
Rajinder Nath Kapoor Vs ITO (Delhi High Court)
Delhi High Court held that notice u/s 148 and order thereon issued and passed against a non-extant entity cannot be complied with and hence liable to be set aside.
Facts- The petitioner has approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and/or setting aside of the notice passed under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act and order dated 31.03.2023 under Section 148A(d) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17.
The present petitioner alongwith his father and brother constituted a partnership firm under the name and style M/s Kapoor Electric Mart by way of partnership deed dated 20.04.1982 and started business. After death of their father, the petitioner and his brother executed fresh partnership deed and continued the business. With effect from 01.04.2004, the firm M/s Kapoor Electric Mart was dissolved and business of the firm was taken over by the petitioner as a sole proprietor of M/s Kapoor Electric Mart. The petitioner has been mainly engaged in import of electric goods from China and sale thereof in India.
The petitioner received first notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act addressed to the erstwhile partnership firm, alleging that no return of income for A.Y. 2016-17 had been filed though the firm had entered into a high value transaction by way of import of Rs.1,96,08,310/- (assessable value of Rs. 2,23,95,361/-) thereby the income chargeable to tax in the form of assets had escaped assessment. Thereafter, the petitioner received second notice u/s. 148A(b) of the Act addressed to the erstwhile partnership firm alleging that in the first notice, the relevant provision of law was wrongly quoted as Section 149(1)(a) instead of Section 149(1)(b) of the Act.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
