9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (9) TMI 1423X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion money etc. - Held that:- CIT-A erred in sustaining addition u/s 68 & 69C on account of alleged unexplained share application money and alleged commission paid on said share application money dehors the fact that: i. In enquiry, bank has confirmed the aforesaid transaction to Ld AO; ii. In enquiry, share applicant u/s 133(6) has confirmed the subject transaction to Ld AD as evident from para 3.1 of AO's order; iii. The adversarial statement never mentions assesee's name and hence not reliable for reopening and addition (lack of nexus & untested allegation); iv. Assessee has adduced all relevant and required evidence to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act; v. No visible effort is made by Ld AD to validly convert and tran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in law, learned CIT-A erred in not quashing the instant assessment framed on non existing person in as much as following undisputed facts are not called in question: a. That assessee validly stood amalgamated by high court order dated 16.11.2011 copy available/filed to Ld AO during assessment proceedings; b. That no notice is issued at any stage to successor company; Invalid reopening (reasons, approval etc) 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in not quashing the instant reopening being made in apparent violation of mandatory jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the law. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in not qua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amalgamated with M/s Aditya Air Products Pvt.Ltd. by virtue of the Hon ble Delhi High Court order dt. 16.11.2011. This was duly intimated to the AO vide letter dt. 19.4.2012. The AO passed an order on 25.3.2013 on a non existing assessee. 2.1. Under these circumstances I have to quash the order of the AO as confirmed by the First Appellate Authority by applying the proposition laid down in the following cases. a) CIT vs.Radha Apparels P.Ltd. in ITA no.4956/2015 (Del) judgement dt. 18.3.2015; b) CIT vs. M/s Intel Technology India P.Ltd. in ITA 499/2009 (Karnataka); c) I.K.Agencies P.Ltd. vs CWT 20 taxmann.com 731 (Calcutta0; d) CIT vs. Vived Marketing Services P.Ltd. in ITA 273/2009 (Del) judgement dt. 17.9.2009; e) Khurana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
