RAJINDER NATH KAPOOR Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing and/or setting aside of the notice dtd. 31/3/2023 passed under Sec. 148 of the Income Tax Act and order dtd. 31/3/2023 under Sec. 148A(d) of the Act pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-17. The writ petition was contested on behalf of the respondents Income Tax Officer and Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax through counsel. We heard learned counsel for both sides.

(2.) Briefly stated, circumstances relevant for present purposes are as follows.

(3.) On behalf of petitioner, it was argued that the impugned order under Sec. 148A(d) as well as the impugned notice under Sec. 148 of the Act are not sustainable in the eyes of law as the same were passed and issued in the name of non-extant entity, insofar as the same were issued to M/s Kapoor Electric Mart with PAN AAAFK4540P, the partnership firm which is no more in existence. Learned counsel for petitioner contended that petitioner had been admittedly filing returns of income as sole proprietor of Kapoor Electric Mart and that mention of PAN of the partnership firm in the bill of entry was a bonafide mistake insofar as petitioner had not concealed the purchases (imports) in the books of the proprietorship concern.