9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 679X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 65/Del./2012, C.Os.-121 to 126/Del./2012 - - - Dated:- 21-9-2012 - Shri G. D. Agarwal And Shri I. C. Sudhir,JJ. For the Appellant : Sh. Gunjan Prasad, CIT DR For the Respondent : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. ORDER Per Bench The common first appeal order has been questioned by the parties on common grounds of their respective appeals/cross-objections. 1. The revenue has questioned first appellate order on the following common grounds in his appeals:- (1). That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 34,79,422/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of unexplained purchases. (2). That the Commissioner of Income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued u/s 153C, based on said documents, is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. (3) That admittedly, as recorded in the satisfaction note, no seized document related to the relevant assessment year was found and the seized paper referred in the said satisfaction note were duly reflected in the regular books of A/CIT(A) and no incriminating material was found. Hence the notice issued u/s 153C is illegal, bad in law without jurisdiction. (4) That in view of the facts circumstances of the case the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in holding that the assessment has been framed in conformity with statutory provisions of Section 153C r/w Section 153A of the Act. (5) That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asically placed reliance on the assessment order. The Ld. AR, on the other hand, tried to justify the first appellate order on the issue. He pointed out further that in reply dated 22.11.2010 of the assessee to the letter dated 12.11.2010 issued by the Assessing Officer, the assessee, in point no-28 of the said letter, had pointed out to the Assessing Officer that the assessee company had already been amalgamated with M/s Dynamic Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. vide Hon ble Delhi High Court order dated 22.12.2009 passed u/s 391(2) and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956. He submitted that a copy of the said order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court was also enclosed with the said letter. Despite that the Assessing Officer proceeded with the assessment, contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... td. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Delhi WT Bench, (2005) 93 TTJ (Del) 806: (2005) 93 ITD 561; g) Century Enka Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of on 14 February, 2006: 2006 101 ITD 489 Mum, 2008 303 ITR 1 Mum; h) Pampasar Distillery Ltd Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT, Kolkata E Bench, (2007) 15 SOT 331 (Kol); i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 1973 CTR (SC) 454; (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC); j) Spice3 Entertainment Limited Vs CIT ITA 475 476 of 2011. 6. We fully concur with the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) that a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is a juristic person. It takes its birth and gets life with incorporation and it dies with the dissolution as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
