9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 639X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue before the AO. - Appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 3958 And 3959/Del/2015 - - - Dated:- 9-1-2019 - SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For The Assessee : None For The Revenue : Sh. Sridhar Dora, Sr. Dr. ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM The revenue has filed these Appeals against the respective Orders both dated 22.4.2015 of the Ld. CIT(A)-5, New Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. Since the issues involved in these appeals are inter-connected, hence, the appeals were heard together and are now being consolidated and disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. 2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 3958/Del/2015 read as under: 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case in law, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in quashing the assessment proceedings u/s 144/147 on the ground that there was no valid service of notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and u/s 148 on director Shri Raj Kr. Arora. 2. That while doing so the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the fact that all these notices were duly served on the PAN address of the assessee which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onnection with a Tax Evasion Petition against the company, it has been found that the said assessee company, which was incorporated on 2.7.2007, had taken loan of ₹ 2,20,58,823/- (Rs. 30 lakhs NOK (3 million Norweigian Kroneer) from Sh. Ashok Sarin, an NRI. Part of the amount contributed by the said person was utilized for the purpose of advances to various parties against purchase of land for setting up a textile park in Jodhpur. However, the company has not filed its return of income for the AY 2008-09 during which the above transactions were undertaken by it. Accordingly, notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 22.3.2012 was issued. A letter dated 23.8.2012 requiring the assessee company to furnish the evidence of return electronically filed for the AY 2008-09 on 4.9.2012, which was uncomplied and another letter dated 1.2.2013 was issued to furnish the evidence of return electronically filed for the A Y 2008-09 on 8.2.2013 was issued, but again no compliance. A final opportunity of was also issued and served by hand to the assessee. In response to this letter, vide letter dated 7.2.2013, assessee submitted that owing to pending of court case under CBT section of Economic Offences ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... had made assessment u/s. 144/147 of the I.T. Act, on the pretext that the appellant did not respond to his notices u/s. 143(2)/142(1)/148 of the I.T. Act. The AR of the appellant produces all evidences of disputes between two directors of the company i.e. Sh. Abhinav Jain and (Sh. Ashok Sarin, funding NRI from Norway) and Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, working director from India, who purchased land at Udaipur, Rajasthan to start textile park for export of garments in a big way. The NRI Director paid ₹ 2,20,58,823/- initially to Indian Director, but after 2 months or so, the dispute between them started Sh. Ashok Sarin took over control of company and filed complaints and FIRs against Indian Director Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, in Police Station and did not give notices of I.T. Department to Sh. Raj Kumar Arora, for compliance. Thus the A/R vehemently argued that since he is unaware of 144 proceedings from A.O. he had no other option, but to file this appeal. He came to know the assessment proceedings after 156 demand was raised. In the meantime, all the additional evidences were sent to A.O. for remand report from this office on 07.01.2015, but A.O. did not sent remand report so far. Finall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the case, FIR No. 505/2010 under Sections 406/420/J20-B IPC, Police Station Shakarpur and the consequent proceedings emanating therefrom are quashed, subject to, however, deposit of 50,000/- by each petitioner with the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre within four weeks. Receipts be filed in the Registry and copies thereof be given to Investigation Officer. Legal Issue:- Since no valid notice u/s 143(2)/l 42(1 )/148 was served on Director Raj Kumar Arora, the 144/147 proceedings is invalid one. Therefore, I quash the 144/147 order passed by A.O. on care in future to see to it that all the notices u/s 148/143(2)/142(1) are served on the assessee in time and properly. Otherwise, send the Inspector to business premises and make enquiry and get a report from him. Summon the Directors before making any assessments u/s 143(3)/144 of I.T. Act. Hence the demand created u/s 144/147 is illegal, invalid and may not stand the test of appeal. This ground of appeal no.l, 2, 3 is allowed. Ground No.4, 5, 6 All the receipts of money are not income of the company. In this case, the receipt of money of ₹ 4,60,01,150/- as per MOU dated 01.12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
