2016 (7) TMI 578 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of reopening of assessment against defunct company - Held that - Admittedly assessee had not given information to AO in terms of section 176 of the I.T. Act when it had applied to ROC on 29.12.2003. However, when the notice u/s 148 was issued on 24.3.2006, then vide its reply dated 5.4.2006 this fact was specifically brought to the notice of AO, as is evident from the contents of the letter, reproduced earlier. It is well settled law that no assessment order can be passed on a defunct company. Therefore, the assessment order passed by AO was non est in the eyes of law. Under such circumstances, restore this matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for providing an opportunity to assessee to produce authentic evidence to show the date of dissolution of the assessee company. In case ld. CIT(A), after perusing the documents filed by assessee, gets satisfied about the authenticity of the documents, then the assessment order passed will stand quashed. - Decided in favour of assessee for statistical purposes.

Summary

Issues:
1. Jurisdiction on Defunct Company
2. Jurisdiction on Enhancement
3. Invalid Re-assessment proceedings
4. Merits

Jurisdiction on Defunct Company:
The appeal challenged the assessment order due to the defunct status of the company when the jurisdiction was assumed. The appellant argued that no valid notice was served as the company was already defunct. The CIT(A) did not address this issue adequately. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order on a defunct company is non est in the eyes of the law. The AO's failure to consider the defunct status led to the order being deemed invalid. The Tribunal directed the matter back to the CIT(A) for the appellant to provide authentic evidence of the company's dissolution date.

Jurisdiction on Enhancement:
The appellant contested the enhancement of income without valid reasons or basis. The CIT(A) was criticized for exceeding jurisdiction by arbitrarily enhancing the assessment. The Tribunal emphasized that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts and evidence properly before enhancing the assessment. The appellant's request to produce the Managing Director of the buyer company after a long period was deemed impractical. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of cogent reasons for the enhancement and the arbitrary nature of the CIT(A)'s actions.

Invalid Re-assessment proceedings:
The appellant argued that the reassessment proceedings lacked sufficient reasons to believe income escapement. The initiation was based on a report from another AO rather than the assessing officer's own satisfaction. The appellant's request for reasons recorded and related documents was not fulfilled, infringing principles of natural justice. The Tribunal acknowledged the procedural lapses and emphasized the need for proper adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Merits:
The appellant disputed the inclusion of a certain amount as income from undisclosed sources under section 68 of the Act. The lower authorities were criticized for failing to provide reasons for treating the transaction as bogus. The appellant highlighted that the amount was already included in the profit & loss account under capital gains, leading to double taxation. The Tribunal noted the lack of justification by the lower authorities and the arbitrary nature of the assessment.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, emphasizing the need for proper assessment procedures and adherence to legal principles. The judgment highlighted the importance of authentic evidence, valid reasons for enhancements, and the avoidance of double taxation through proper assessment practices.