9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 578X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 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. - ITA no. 2909/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 8-7-2016 - SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Subodh Gupta CA For The Respondent : Ms. Anchal Khandelwal Sr. DR ORDER PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: This is assessee s appeal against the order dated 20.02.2014, passed by the ld. CIT(A)-19, New Delhi, relating to A.Y. 1999-2000. 2. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ible. Invalid Re-assessment proceedings 5. The impugned assessment order is bad in law and should be set aside on the ground that a there was no sufficient 'reasons to believe' any escapement of income and the initiation by issue of notice u/s 148 was merely based on a report from AO, ward 6(1), rather than AO's own satisfaction. It is submitted that learned AO was not even aware of the contents and/ or the reasons of such conclusions by said AO ward 6(1). 6. That learned assessing officer has failed and was not justified in not acceding the specific request made by assessee during the course of assessment to provide the reasons recorded and the copy of the letter so received from AO ward 6(1), in as much as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground of appeal or adduce any new evidence during the course of appeal, as may be necessary, for the disposal of appeal and discharge of due justice to the appellant. 3. The assessee filed its return of income declaring loss of ₹ 1,84,170/- . The AO had received information from ITO Ward 6(1), New Delhi vide letter No. ITO Ward 6(1)/2005-06/502 dated 20.3.2006 that the assessee company had received an accommodation entry of ₹ 3,00,000/- on 7.10.1998 from M/s M.S. Leasing during FY 1998-99 relevant to AY 1999- 2000. The AO has observed that notice u/s 148 was duly served on the assessee on 25.3.2006. In response, assessee filed letter on 10.4.2006, requesting for treating the original return filed as return filed in respon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed to page 24 of the PB, wherein the order of ROC dated 23.6.2006, striking off the name of the company is contained. 7. With reference to aforementioned documents, ld. counsel referred to the assessment order, which was passed on 8.8.2006. Ld. counsel, therefore, submitted that the assessment order passed by AO is bad in law. 8. Ld. counsel further pointed out that ld. CIT(A) has not disputed that the assessment order could not be passed by AO on a defunct company, but in para 4.1 and 4.2 of his order has observed as under: 4.1 Ground no.6 challenges the validity of the order on the ground that the company was already defunct on the date the jurisdiction was assumed by the issue of notice u/s 148 dt 24.3.2006 . The submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the order of CIT(A). 10. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and have perused the record of the case. 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. All these aspects have not been disputed by ld. CIT(A), as is evident from his observation noted earlier in para ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
