2017 (6) TMI 13

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... act receipts in the hands of the assessee in the status of firm and to make fresh assessment thereof is illegal and bad in law. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in not accepting the contention of the assessee that the said receipt is already considered by the firm in its regular return." 2. This case was reopened for recording the reasons that during the financial year 2007-08, the assessee had received Rs. 24,20,688/- from the various parties and TDS was also deducted U/s 194C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and on the examination, it was found that no return of income by the assessee company was filed for assessment year 2008-09. 3. The ld. CIT(A) granted relief to the assessee on the sub .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed before the AO in reassessment proceeding, the AO should not have passed the order under the status of the 'company' which is a non-existing person. It is a settled law that assessment made on non existing persons is illegal and bad in law and in support of its contention, the appellant placed reliance upon a number of judicial pronouncements. (iii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant, assessment order, the material placed on record and the judicial pronouncements relied upon by the appellant. It was the contention of the appellant that it has included the receipts of Rs. 24,20,688/- in its total receipts of Rs. 74,10,868/- for the year under consideration. However, it is noted that during the assessment proceedings .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ing person. For instance in one case, the company was amalgamated into another company and assessment was made in the name of amalgamating company. In another case, a partnership firm was converted into a company and thus the firm became non-existent. But, in the instant case under consideration, as noted above, the firm remains the same, continued the same business etc. except with a new PAN. In fact, the appellant firm even owned up the transaction stated in 26AS pertaining to old PAN. (v) However, it is to be noted that there can be only one assessment order for an assessee for one assessment year. Here, the assessment was framed by the AO in the name of the appellant but in the status of a 'company' which is not a correct proposition .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X