9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (8) TMI 46X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... id ab initio as notice has been issued to the wrong entity. Hence we confirm the order of the CIT (A) and dismiss the Revenue’s appeal. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No.1877/Hyd/2014,ITA No.1878/Hyd/2014,ITA No.1879/Hyd/2014,ITA No.1880/Hyd/2014,ITA No.1881/Hyd/2014 - - - Dated:- 29-7-2015 - Shri B. Ramakotaiah Smt.Asha Vijayaraghavan, JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri Rajat Mitra, DR For the Respondent : Shri K.C. Devdas ORDER Per Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan, J.M. These are the appeals preferred by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) VII, Hyderabad dated 30.09.2014 for A.Y 2004-05: ITA No.1877/Hyd/2014 1. The assessee is an individual and the erstwhile Di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d noted that the following were shown as sources of funds: Sources of funds/liabilities Amount credited in the books (Rs.) Share capital 1,00,000 Share Application Money 24,00,000 Outstanding liabilities 3,91,33,166 Total 4,16,33,166 4. AO held that no information or confirmation in respect of funds were filed and treated the entire amount of ₹ 4.16 crores as unexplained credit u/s 68 and raised a tax demand of ₹ 2.88 crores on the company M/s Pallavi Real Estates Developers Pvt. Ltd. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. The ld CIT (A)-VII Hyderabad has erred in both facts and in law. 2. The ld CIT (A) VII Hyderabad erred in holding that jurisdiction over the assessee was not vesting with AO. 3. The ld CIT (A)VII Hyderabad erred in holding that no order could be passed on the liquidated companies. 4. The ld CIT (A) VII Hyderabad erred in holding that the notice was not served on the assessee. 7. We heard both parties. We find that the AO has invoked the provisions of section 147 and served the notice on a company which is altogether a different company and has also issued notice u/s 142(1) to the erstwhile Director who has already submitted that the company which has been assessed has been liquidated on 25.03.2008. We are of the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on a company liquidated four years ago and that too by invoking the provisions of section 148 and that too serving the notice on an altogether different company (a separate legal entity) and issuing notice u/s 142(1) to the erstwhile Director who repeatedly drew attention of the AO to the liquidated status of the company . 4. Since we have already decided similar issue in ITA No.1877/Hyd/2014, the same conclusions shall be adopted in this case also. 5. In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.1879/Hyd/2014: 1. The assessment which was being appealed before the CIT (A) is on the company, M/s Girivardhan Estates Pvt. Ltd for A.Y 2004-05 against order of AO. The AO had completed assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... return of income of the company for A.Y 2004-05 was filed on 8.11.2004 returning an income of ₹ 1,40,090. The company was liquidated on 27.03.2008 and notice u/s 148 was issued on the company on 14.03.2011. Notice u/s 148 was served on M/s SRSR Advisory Pvt Ltd. In response to the notice issued u/s 148 to the company, the erstwhile Director of the company Sri N. Rama Raju replied that the company was liquidated on 27.03.2008. Assessment proceedings continued by way of issue of notice u/s 142(1) dated 16.08.2011. 3. We find that the CIT (A) findings are similar to that of in ITA No.1877/Hyd/2014. Hence we are of the opinion that the issuance of notice u/s 148 on a different company namely M/s. SRSR Advisory (P) Ltd makes the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
