Ganesh Commodity Brokers Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
Summary: The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Delhi, in the case of Ganesh Commodity Brokers vs. ITO, has ruled that reassessment proceedings initiated against a dissolved firm are invalid if the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not properly served on the erstwhile partners. The firm, represented by its former partner, challenged the reassessment orders for Assessment Years 2013-14 and 2014-15, arguing that the notice was issued to a non-existing entity. The firm had been dissolved and its dissolution, along with a request for PAN cancellation, was communicated to the tax department on November 28, 2014. Despite this, the Assessing Officer (AO) issued reassessment notices in 2021 in the name and address of the dissolved firm, and not to the former partners, leading to the firm not receiving these communications. The ITAT acknowledged that Section 189 of the Income Tax Act allows for the assessment of a dissolved firm as if it were still in existence to ensure tax liability is not escaped. However, it highlighted the crucial aspect of notice service as per Section 283(2) of the Act, which explicitly states that where a firm is dissolved, notices should be served on any person who was a partner immediately before its dissolution. Since the AO was aware of the dissolution and failed to serve the notices on the former partners, the ITAT concluded that the notices were not issued in compliance with the law. Relying on High Court judgments, including one from the Gujarat High Court, the ITAT quashed the reassessment orders for both assessment years. Additionally, the Tribunal noted that the additions made under Section 68 of the Act, treating certain business losses as unexplained cash credits, were also not sustainable on merits, as the losses represented an outflow of funds, not credits.
Paid content
Author Info
Join TaxGuru's Network for the latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.
Section 80G Application Cannot Be Rejected Merely for Wrong Section Code: ITAT Pune
October 5, 2026
Wrong Clause in Form 10AB Is Clerical Error; Section 80G Application Restored: ITAT Mumbai
October 5, 2026Reassessment Beyond 3 Years Quashed as PCIT Was Wrong Sanctioning Authority: ITAT Mumbai
October 5, 2026Redeveloped Flat Received Against Surrender of Old Flat Not Taxable Under Section 56(2)(vii): ITAT Mumbai
October 5, 2026
Covid Lockdown Delay in Employees’ PF & ESI Deposit: Section 36(1)(va) Disallowance Deleted by ITAT Delhi
October 5, 2026
