9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (6) TMI 819X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted the facts of the case and has taken effectiveness of amalgamation of assessee company with M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd. from 01.04.2008 which is contrary to the facts of order of Hon ble High Court, Bombay dated 08.05.2009. 2. Briefly stated, the relevant material facts are like this. It is a case selected for scrutiny on the basis of CASS but no return was filed in this case. When assessee was called upon to file the return, it was explained by the assessee that since the assessee company stood amalgamated in Reliance Media Works Ltd. w.e.f. 1st April, 2008, no separate return need to be filed. A copy of Hon ble Bombay High Court s judgment dated 08.05.2009 was also placed before the Assessing Officer. Learned Assessing Officer, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2009-10, assess is made on best judgment assessment u/s 144 of the I.T. Act based on the material available with the undersigned. 3. In absence of any details in the form of P. L. A/c or balance sheet what-so-ever, the income of the assessee is taken at NIL. 4. Further, it is seen from the assessment order of previous year i.e. in the A.Y. 2008-09 the assessee company has received unsecured loan from holding company M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd. at ₹ 32,86,36,924.26 and the assessee was not able to substantiate this unsecured loan with documentary evidences. So these unsecured loans from the holding company M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd. were treated to be undisclosed income of the assessee u/s 68 of the I. T. Act in the previous year relevant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... all the assets and liabilities of the appellant company had been transferred to M/s. Adlabs Films Ltd. as from 01.04.2008. In view of this legal fact, I hold that the appellant company had no existence as on 01.04.2008 and, therefore, the same could not have been a taxable entity during the F.Y. 2008-09. Accordingly, the assessment framed on a non-existent company is being annulled. 4. Yet, the Assessing Officer is not satisfied and is in appeal before us. 5. Having heard the rival contentions and having perused the materials available on record, we see no reasons to interfere in the matter. Neither there is any dispute about the factual position that the effective date of merger was 1st April, 2008, as evident from Hon ble Bombay H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
