M/S. STEECON INFRASTRUCTURE ,JODHPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), JODHPUR
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed
ITA 61/JODH/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2023AY 2012-13
Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Steecon Infrastructure Income Tax Officer 1(4) 85, Subhash Nagar, Pal Road, Paota Jodhpur- 242008 Vs. Jodhpur- 342008 Pan No. Acdfs3423Q Appellant Respondent
For Appellant: Mr. Piyush Chajed and Mr SumitFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra S. Mahajan, AR
Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148
persons, who were partners at the relevant time.
Mr. Kolah has then argued that the notice does not comply with the requirement of section 63(2) inasmuch as it is not addressed to a partner of the firm as required by the said provision. There is no substance in this ... contention also. The provision of section 63(2), which requires that in the case of a firm the notice to the firm may be addressed to any partner of the firm merely prescribes a permissive mode of service and is not intended to be either mandatory or exhaustive.
Consequently
