9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2016 (7) TMI 969X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2009-10 escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Further, the respondent proposed to assess/re-assess the income for the said assessment year and directed the said company to deliver to him, within 30 days from the date of service of the notice dated 16.3.2016, a return of their income in the prescribed form for the said assessment year. The notice dated 16.3.2016, though addressed to M/s.AGS, has been served on the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner is the holding company. 3. The petitioner would state that they were compelled to receive the said notice dated 16.3.2016 and immediately they sent a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The attention of the petitioner was drawn to Section 560(5)(a) and (b) of the Companies Act, 1956 and it was stated that M/s.AGS is still an assessee in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 and that every director, manager or other officer, who were nominated by the holding company, are continuing and are being enforceable as if M/s.AGS has not been dissolved. 5. The petitioner was further directed to produce all documentary evidence in connection with dissolution/strike off, give names and addresses of the directors at the time of filing of application for dissolution/strike off; and furnish the copy of the notice claimed to have been sent to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax dated 24.2.2014. After seeking the above details/document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sent to the petitioner asking them to clarify as to how the dissolution/strike off under Section 560(3) of the Companies Act, 1956 bars the initiation of re-assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10 relating to the period prior to dissolution/strike off. 9. After hearing the parties, this Court is of the view that the impugned proceedings dated 10.6.2016, being a notice calling upon the petitioner to clarify certain factual issues, cannot be put to challenge under Article 226 of The Constitution. That apart, the respondent called for documentary evidence in connection with the dissolution of M/s.AGS, names and addresses of the directors at the time of filing of application for dissolution/strike off and also copy of the notice ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndent and clarify all issues, on which, clarifications have been sought and produce documentary evidence called for. 13. The apprehension of the petitioner is that the respondent will proceed to complete the re-assessment under Section 144 of the Act. 14. If the respondent called for certain documents and sought clarifications, then simultaneously the respondent cannot proceed with the re-assessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Act. The petitioner is entitled to raise all issues before the respondent and after considering the contentions raised by the petitioner, the respondent shall pass a speaking order. If, in the hands of the respondent, the petitioner's explanation is not found satisfactory, then only he can proceed furth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
