JUDGMENT : (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.) 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohit R.Balani for the petitioner and learned advocate Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the respondent. 2. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Ms. Maithili D. Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 31.03.2022 passed under section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (For short “the Act”) as well as notice under section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessment for Assessment Year 2018-2019 dated 31.03.2022. 4. The petitioner is the erstwhile partner of M/s. AMC Corporation, a partnership firm which is dissolved with effect from 01.04.2017. 5. After 01.04.2017, the petitioner Smt. Pannaben Dilipbhai Modi was proprietor of M/s. AMC Corporation and filed the return of income for Assessment Year 2018-2019 declaring total income of Rs.6,53,620/- on 19.10.2018. Subsequently, the assessment order dated 20.04.2021 was passed by the National e-Assessment Center determining the total income of Rs.28,76,794/-. 6. The petitioner thereafter received a notice dated 13.03.2022 under section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of AMC Corporation, a partnership firm having PAN number of erstwhile firm which was dissolved from 01.04.2017. It was stated in the said notice that M/s. AMC Corporation, the firm, had carried out transaction amounting to Rs.2,92,88,06,630/- which were not disclosed and no return of income was filed by the said firm. 7. In response to the show cause notice by letter dated 23.03.2022, the petitioner informed the respondent that the firm was dissolved with effect from 01.04.2017 and the business was carried out by the petitioner under the same trade name as in capacity of the proprietor. It was further informed that necessary requests to the bank were made to update the PAN details of the account of M/s AMC Corporation and the sales turn over as disclosed by the petitioner as proprietor of AMC Corporation was far more than the cash deposit referred in the notice. It was also pointed out that the transactions for that year under consideration i.e. for Financial Year 2017-2018 are already assessed in the hands of the petitioner and order under section 144 of the Act was passed. It was also pointed out that the transactions for that year under consideration i.e. for Financial Year 2017-2018 are already assessed in the hands of the petitioner and order under section 144 of the Act was passed. The petitioner also provided the copy of dissolution deed, audited financial statement, tax audit report, income tax report of the petitioner being the proprietor of M/s. AMC Corporation for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 8. However, the respondent passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 31.03.2022 at 10:10 PM in name of non existing partnership firm on the ground that the documentary evidence submitted by the petitioner do not explain the fact that income arising from the impugned transaction has been duly disclosed and the relevant income arising therefrom has been offered for taxation for the year under consideration and therefore, considering the quantum of amount involved, further investigation and verification of the fact and evidence was required which can be done only if the case is taken up for assessment proceedings. 9. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. 10. Learned advocate Mr. Mohit Balani for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 31.03.2022 by ignoring the fact that M/s. AMC Corporation, partnership firm has been dissolved with effect from 01.04.2017 and therefore, no transactions are carried out in the name of said partnership firm for Financial Year 2017- 2018 and the entire business was taken over by the petitioner as proprietor of M/s. AMC Corporation which is duly reflected in the return of income filed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 11. It was further submitted that for subsequent years i.e. Assessment Year 2019-2020 similar notices were issued for reassessment in the name of partnership firm, however, such proceedings were dropped by passing the order under section 148A(d) of the Act on 30.03.2023. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Balani invited the attention of the Court to page 196 of the petition at para no.7 of such order to point out that in similar facts, the reassessment proceedings in the name of non existing firm were dropped which reads as under: “7. 12. Learned advocate Mr. Balani invited the attention of the Court to page 196 of the petition at para no.7 of such order to point out that in similar facts, the reassessment proceedings in the name of non existing firm were dropped which reads as under: “7. The details submitted by the assessee has been considered carefully and it is found that Smt. Pannaben Dilipbhai Modi is a sole proprietor of the AMC Corporation and she had filed ITR under her Individual PAN- ASTPM6758Q of sole Proprietorship firm for A.Y.2019-20 and had accounted all the transactions related to M/s.AMC Corporation, PAN- AAWFA6589Q in her books of accounts. Further as per the details available with this office it is found that assessee has deposited cash of Rs.145,91,90,000/- in the Bank Account No.002111101003712 maintained with Sardar Gunj Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd. In order to verify the transactions this office has issued notice u/s. 133(6) of the IT Act vide letter No.ITBA/COM/F/17/2022-23/10505912 92 (1) dated 10.03.2022 to provide the details of Bank Account No.002111101003712 maintained with Sardar Gunj Mercantile Co-op Bank Ltd. In response to the notice the Branch Manager, submitted the Bank statement alongwith the KYC details. On going through the bank statement it is found that the total credit in the Bank Account No.002111101003712 is Rs. 53,76,22,313/- instead of Rs. 145,91,90,000/-. The same has been accounted in the books of accounts by the assessee. Therefore, the transactions in question are not required to take action u/s. 148A of the IT Act. 8. In light of the above facts and on the basis of material available on record, it is decided that the case of M/s. AMC Corporation, PAN- AAWFA6589Q is not fit case for issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2019-20.” 13. It was therefore, submitted that for Assessment Year 2018-2019, the respondent could not have taken a different view to assume the jurisdiction for reassessment of the non existing partnership firm. 14. Reliance was also placed on the decision of this Court in case of Nathalal Hemabhai Patel v. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Mehsana rendered on 30.09.2024 in Special Civil Application No. 11214 of 2023 to submit that in similar facts it was held by this Court relying upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in (2019) 107 taxmann. Com 375 (SC) for quashing and setting aside the notice issued under section 148 of the Act for reassessment. 15. On the other hand learned advocate Ms. Maithili D. Mehta for the respondents submitted that the petitioner was duty bound to disclose the dissolution of the partnership firm prior to issuance of notice under section 148A(b) of the Act and in absence of such disclosure, the respondent was justified in issuing the notice for reassessment for the year under consideration. It was further submitted that neither the assessee has informed the department about the conversion of partnership firm to the sole proprietor firm nor surrendering PAN of partnership firm for deactivation and therefore, impugned notice for reassessment of the amount which was pointed out in the Annual Information Report by third party bank for the transaction carried out in PAN number of the said firm was enough to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2018-2019. It was therefore, submitted that no interference be made in this petition to quash the impugned notice for reassessment. 16. Having considered the submissions made by learned advocate for the respective parties it appears that respondent Assessing Officer has issued the impugned notice under section 148A(b) of the Act in the name of partnership firm having PAN no.AAWFA6589Q as well as passed the order under section 148A(d) of the Act in the name of the said firm which has already been dissolved with effect from 01.04.2017. 17. In view of such undisputed fact about the dissolution of the partnership firm and issuance of the notice for reassessment in name of dissolved firm, the impugned notice and order would not be tenable more particularly, when the petitioner in the reply to the show cause notice issued under section 148A(b) of the Act has provided all the information including dissolution deed before the respondent Assessing Officer. 18. In view of the settled legal position as held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Maruti Suzuki Limited (supra) , the impugned notice and the order are required to be quashed and set aside. 19. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the impugned notice as well as the order dated 31.03.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it would be open for the respondent to initiate the proceedings, if required, under the provisions of the Act against the petitioner in accordance with law. 20. 19. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and the impugned notice as well as the order dated 31.03.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside. However, it would be open for the respondent to initiate the proceedings, if required, under the provisions of the Act against the petitioner in accordance with law. 20. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No orders as to cost.