IN THE MADRAS HIGH COURT
P.T. ASHA, J.
Senthil Murugan Jewellers v. Asstt. CIT
W.P.(MD) No. 8706 of 2023 & W.M.P.(MD) No. 7979 of 2023
17 April, 2023
Petitioner by: A. Thiagarajan Senior Counsel & S. Karunakar
Respondent by: N. Dilip Kumar Senior Standing Counsel
The writ petition has been filed challenging the order passed by the respondent in his proceedings in Pan No. ABMFS6863J & Din No. ITBA/AST/S/153 C/2022-23/1051715171, (1) dated 30-3-2023 and quashing the same.
2. The facts preceding the filing of the writ petition are as follows:-
3. The petitioner is running a jewelry business as a partnership firm. They are assessees on the file of the respondent and had also registered themselves as a dealer under the Tamil Nadu Goods and Services Act, 2017 and Central Goods and Service Act, 2017. It is their case that for the assessment year 2017-18, they had filed their return of income and the assessment was completed as per section 143(3) of the Act on 30-12-2019, wherein a total income of Rs. 48,979 was declared.
4. It appears that on 10-11-2020, a search was conducted under section 132 of the Income Tax Act at the premises of M/s. Mohanlal Jewelers (P) Ltd, Shri Suresh Kumar Khatri and others at the office located at Kondithope, Chennai. During the search, certain incriminating materials relating to the petitioner firm and other dealers were seized by the respondent and based on this search, it was found that the group had been using a customized software, called 'J PACK' solely for the purpose of recording the unaccounted gold and cash transactions carried on by M/S. Mohanlal Jewellers with others. Two years thereafter the petitioner by their letter dated 2-12-2022 were informed that as per the Notification Order No. 46/2022-23 of the Principal Commissioner, Madurai-1, the case had been centralized to the Assistant Commissioner, Central Circle -1, Madurai. The notices under sections 153(2) and 142(1) dated 18-1-2023 and 24-2-2023 respectively were issued and based on the investigation of the pen drives and other incriminating documents, the respondent had come to the conclusion that the ledger named 'PANDU MD' relates to the petitioner firm.