The main legal point established in the judgment is that the authorities did not err in issuing the notices and orders under the Income Tax Act, considering the continued operation of the bank account with the old PAN Number and the opportunity provided to the petitioner to explain their stand.

ORDER :

C. Praveen Kumar, J.

The present writ petition came to be filed, by one Visakha Gas Agency represented by its Managing Partner/I. Venkata Subba Rao, seeking issuance of writ of Mandamus to declare (a) the Show Cause Notice issued by the first respondent under Section 148-A(b) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short, “IT Act”] dated 21.03.2022, (b) the Order passed by the first respondent under Section 148A(d) of I.T.Act dated 01.04.2022 and (c) the Notice issued by the first respondent under Section 148 of I.T. Act dated 04.04.2022 for the Assessment Year 2015-16, as illegal, arbitrary and bad in law.

2. The averments made in the affidavit filed, in support of the writ petition, would show that though the name of the Assessee firm, mentioned in the notice and order, and that of the petitioner herein being same, but the PAN Number, address and constitution of the Assessee firm are different from those of the petitioner herein, and as such, the impugned notices issued, in spite of bringing to the notice of the authorities that the petitioner firm was dissolved in the year 2001 itself upon the death of one of its partners, is bad in law.

(a) Initially, a partnership firm in the name of ‘Visakha Gas Agency’ was constituted on 15.10.1998 by two partners i.e. the deponent herein and one M. Ramachandra Sastry. The PAN number of the same was AACFV4149H. One of the partners by name M. Ramachandra Sastry expired on 12.12.2001, as such, the partnership firm was dissolved and thereafter it ceased to exist. Subsequent to dissolution of Visakha Gas Agency, the deponent herein operated the Visakha Gas Agency, as a Proprietary concern and filed Income Tax Returns as Proprietor of Visakha Gas Agency with PAN Number AAFPI4915D, from the Assessment Year 2002-03 till Assessment Year 2013-14.

(b) On 01.04.2013, a new partnership firm was constituted in the same name of two partners i.e. deponent herein and one Malladi Gopalakrishna vide partnership dated 01.04.2013. This new firm was at a different place with PAN Number AAMFV0980C. The firm has been filing its returns regularly from the Assessment Year 2015-16. While things stood thus, the petitioner received an e-mail on 12.04.2022, in the name of the firm from the first respondent, which contains three documents (i) Show Cause Notice under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act dated 21.03.2022, (ii) an order under Section 148A(d) of I.T. Act dated 01.04.2022 and (iii) a notice under Section 148 of I.T. Act dated 04.04.2022.

(c) On verification of the above documents by the deponent, it was found that these notices pertains to Assessment Year 2015-16 and the details sought for in the said notices relates to a firm which was dissolved long back, meaning thereby the details related to a firm with PAN Number AACFV4149H. Since, the above notices and order under Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act came to be passed in respect of a firm which was dissolved in the year 2001 itself, in spite of intimating the same to the authorities vide number of letters, the present writ petition is filed.

3. A counter came to be filed by the first and second respondents, disputing the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. In Paragraph 2 of the counter, it is stated that as per the information available on NMS Module of Insight Portal, it was found that the assessee has not filed Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2015-16 in spite of having substantial cash deposits in the bank account. Hence, a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act was issued.

(a) It is further stated in the counter that prior to issuance of such notice, a Show Cause Notice under Clause (b) of Section 148A of the I.T. Act dated 21.03.2022 was issued, calling upon the petitioner to submit his explanation with regard to deposits made in the bank account and as to why a notice under Section 148 of the I.T. Act should not be issued on the basis of the information available with the department. The petitioner was asked to reply