9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (6) TMI 800X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n Closures Ltd. & M/s Trans Asia Packaging Ltd. The sister concerns M/s Asian Closures Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. w.e.f. 20.03.1992 by virtue of an order dated 06.01.1994 of the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court. The effect of the said order was given by the Registrar of Companies on 07.07.1998. The assessee claimed to have maintained separate books of accounts of both the above said companies for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 for both the companies and the returns of income were filed separately of both the aforesaid companies. The another sister concern namely M/s Trans Asia Packaging Ltd. also amalgamated with M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.1992 by virtue of the order of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court dated 28.07.1995 and the effect of this amalgamation was given by the Registrar of Companies on 12.10.1995. The returns of income for the assessment years 1993-94-1994-95 were filed separately by M/s Trans Asia Packaging Ltd. However, while completing the various assessments for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1996-97 in the case of M/s Asian Closures Ltd. and for the assessment years 1992-93 to 1994-95 in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enlarge the period fixed so as to enable the ex-management to approach the tax authorities with a view to settle its outstanding tax dues. Their lordships in the order dated 28.01.2014 observed as under: "The request appears to be just and reasonable. The prayer is accepted to secure the ends of justice, exmanagement of the (Company-in-liquidation) would now appear in the office of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-1, New Delhi on 04.02.2014, for the tax authorities to take further steps in accordance with law." It has further been observed as under: "This Court has no doubt that the appellate authorities, where appeals are pending would take a sympathetic view in condoning the delay in filing the appeal since the company was in liquidation and the Official Liquidator was in position by operation of orders of this Court and had a primary duty to contest all cases on behalf of the company in which officers of large number of companies are involved. " 5. Accordingly, the assessee filed the appeals under consideration. Alongwith these appeals, the assessee also moved applications for condonation of delay, if any, by filing affidavits of the ex-director Sh. Rajiv J ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... p; &nbs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sp; DEPONENT 6. We find merit in the above submissions and accordingly, the appeals are admitted by keeping in view for directions given by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the orders dated 08.05.213 & 28.01.2014 in C.P. No. 8 of 1998 and CA No. 393 of 2013 respectively. 7. Following grounds have been raised in ITA No. 4010/Del/2013: "1. That the order is against the law and facts of the case. 2. That the order passed by AO is perverse in law and facts and has been passed without proper application of mind. 3. That the submission regarding the merger of the Assessee with M/s Asian Consolidated Industries Ltd. duly supported by the order of the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e same and never made the concession attributed to him while taking adverse view. 10. That the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that there has been denial to natural justice to the Assessee as no opportunity is afforded to it. 11. That the Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the order has caused a lot of hardship and prejudice to the Assessee as all the required information and documents evidencing/justifying the contentions raised by the Assessee were in the custody of the official liquidator. 12. That the Assessee has not been afforded with any opportunity to explain his case and prove the genuineness of his claims. 13. That the Assessing Officer could have issued Notice Under Section 131(6) directing the Ex- Directors of the Company to be present and provide the details thereof it the Official Liquidator had failed to provide the same. 14. That without prejudice to the above mentioned grounds: I. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in disallowing interest paid amounting to Rs. 19,77,840/-. The expenses incurred on account of interest having been incurred wholly and exc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ay be decided by the one authority i.e. AO and only then correct effect can be given by the department. c) The appellants have claimed deductions u/s 80HH and 80I from AYs 92-93 onwards. However, the said deductions were not allowed not only in assessment years 92-93 to 95-96, but in AY 96-97 also, which stands set-aside u/s 264 of the Act. As such decision on the issue requires to be adjudicated by one authority i.e. AO in order to avoid decision by multiple authorities and avoidance of litigation. d) In almost all the assessments the department has doubted purchases and sales of trading business. Such doubts have not only been raised in the years before Hon'ble ITAT, but also in the years which have been decided u/s 264 of the Act. In view of setting aside of order u/s 264 of the Act, the issue related to genuineness of trading activity is yet to be decided and it is preferred that by single authority should consider that and not by multiple authority. Similar is the position with respect to invoking of provisions u/s 145 of the Act and genuineness of books of accounts maintained by the group is to be examined by a single authority, so that a decision can be taken and there m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
