9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 36X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l ('ITAT') in ITA No. 2808/Del/2016 for the Assessment Year ('AY') 2009-10. 2. The question sought to be urged by the Revenue in this appeal is whether the ITAT was justified in quashing the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax ('PCIT') under Section 263 of the Act, whereby the assessment order dated 23rd/24th July, 2014 passed by the Assessing Officer ('AO') under Section 147/143(3) of the Act was set aside and the AO was directed to re-examine the assessment and pass the necessary orders after giving due opportunity to the Assessee. 3. The facts in brief are that the Respondent, presently named AAS Research & Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ('ARSPL'), was formerly Ventura Research & Solutions (P) Ltd. ('Ventura'). There was a me ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2 years thereafter was coming to an end on 23rd March, 2016, a notice was issued by the PCIT to KPPL under Section 263 of the Act. Clearly on this date, KPPL did not exist in the eye of law. Apparently, no one appeared before the PCIT pursuant to the said notice returnable date for which was fixed on 30th March, 2016 i.e., exactly one week thereafter. Thereafter on 31st March, 2016 i.e., the date of the expiry of 2 years, the PCIT passed an order under Section 263 of the Act in the manner indicated hereinbefore. 8. In the appeal filed by the Assessee i.e., ARSPL, before the ITAT one of the contentions raised by the Assessee was that the impugned order under Section 263 of the Act by the PCIT had been passed against an entity which did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l against the decision of this Court in Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra). However, it is noticed that while leave has been granted, no stay has been granted of the decision of this Court. As of date the decision in Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra) continues as good law. 13. The legal position as explained in the said decision is very clear. It is observed that "the framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a 'dead person'." The said decision was followed by this Court in Rustagi Engineering Udyog P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (2016) 382 ITR 443 (Del). 14. In the present c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
