9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (1) TMI 990X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T ), though rendered after the final assessment was completed, are clear that such notice and proceedings emanating from it are unsustainable. Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Ltd. (2016 (3) TMI 31 - DELHI HIGH COURT ) takes the logic further and holds that notice issued under section 147 of the Act in respect of an entity which ceases to exist by virtue of amalgamation order under section 394 of the Companies Act, would also be illegal and unsustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 3174/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2017 - S. Ravindra Bhat And Najmi Waziri, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajay Vohra, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kavita Jha and Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Advs For the Respondent : Mr. Rahul Chaudhary, Senior Sta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TSC had in its order dealt with the question whether bogus share money had been introduced by the applicants and observed as follows: 6. xxx xxxx (i) The Investigation Wing in Appraisal report has pointed out about introduction of bogus share application money shown to have been received by the assessee company amounting to Rs. 3,00,00,000/- during the period 01.04.2006 to 11.10.2006 relevant to assessment year 2007-08 from various companies. In post search enquiry by the Investigation Wing, such bogus companies did not comply with the summons issued to them. He further submitted that the assessment is not completed in this case and therefore, this aspect also remained unverified. Details of datewise receipt of bogus share appli ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8 by Rs. 3 crores in the hands of M/s. BDR Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, Applicant No. 1. In the cases of Applicants No. 2 and 3, the income is settled as declared by them in their SOF. 3. The notice impugned in this case proposing re-assessment of income tax of M/s Rishi Promoters Pvt. Ltd. reads as follows: A search seizure operation was conducted on the BDR Group at the premises of the Directors. During the search several incriminating documents were found and seized. During the assessment proceedings the assessee filed application in the settlement commission for the assessment year under consideration, amongst others. The order in this case was passed on 07.02.2013 by the Hon ble Commission where in the retur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax 254 CTR 370 (Delhi) to say that where a Settlement Commission passes its final order in respect of proceedings in any given order, the matters are conclusive and final and it cannot be reopened under section 147 of the Act. It is also urged in addition that re-assessment notice is unsustainable because it was issued to M/s. BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. which was no longer in existence at that time i.e. on 31.03.2014. In support of this contention, reliance is placed upon Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 247 CTR 500 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Dimension Apparels (P) Limited : 370 ITR 288 (Del) and on Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax 382 ITR 443 (Delhi). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l knowledge of, and, experience in, problems relating to direct taxes and business accounts . The provisions of Chapter XIX-A suggest that all matters in relation to the case of the assessee shall be dealt with by the ITSC just as an assessing authority would deal with them while completing an assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act. If this is the position, it would be difficult to sustain the argument of the revenue that the matter relating to the deduction under section 80IB(10) was not the subject matter of the final order of settlement. It follows that the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2006- 07 by issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that the deduction w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued against a non-existent entity i.e. M/s. Rishi Promoters which had ceased to exist by virtue of order of this Court dated 20.02.2013. The date of its amalgamation was in fact earlier. Apparently, the respondent-revenue was aware of this and despite that it proceeded to issue the impugned notice. The judgment in Spice Entertainment (supra) and Dimension Apparels (P) Limited (supra), though rendered after the final assessment was completed, are clear that such notice and proceedings emanating from it are unsustainable. Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P) Ltd. (supra) takes the logic further and holds that notice issued under section 147 of the Act in respect of an entity which ceases to exist by virtue of amalgamation order under section 394 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
