9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (12) TMI 1303X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the date of issue of notice. It certainly does not give raise to a conclusion that there was no manufacturing activity during the year 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012. It is not worthy to conclude that the permanent closure of the business was done w.e.f. 31.03.2014. It is a fact on record that the permanent closure of the business was done w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and polynomial interpolation cannot be resorted to conclude that the assessee was not into manufacturing during the period 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012. The authorization given by the assessee was not affixed by requisite court fee. Hence invalid. The validity or invalidity of the letter of authority cannot be a matter of proceedings u/s. 263 especially when the assessee reaffirmed the details filed by the AR.The assessee sold products to only two concerns at Bangalore namely, M/s. Creative International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The bills have been duly examined. The transport bills have been duly filed before the AO which consists of South India Freight Carriers and Uttarakhand Logistics. The transport charges have been paid by the recipient. The central Sales Tax declarations/'C' Form have be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r direction in the order U/s. 263 of the Income tax Act, on the same issue will only amount to a change of opinion, disentitling, assumption of jurisdiction U/s. 263 of the I.T. Act, by the Principal Commissioner of Income tax thereby making the order bad in law and liable to be quashed. 2. In any case the learned Principal Commissioner of Income tax having erroneously issued a notice to a non-existent entity and having passed an order in the name of a non-existent entity makes the order bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 3.1 In any case, the direction of the Principal Commissioner of Income tax, in the order U/s. 263 of the Income tax Act, being not in accordance with the notice issued and being against the law applicable makes the impugned order bad in law and liable to be quashed. 3.2 In any case and without prejudice, the Principal Commissioner of Income tax has erred in cancelling the assessment done u/s. 143(3) of I.T. Act, with the direction to make a fresh assessment. The directions given by the Commissioner of Income tax are not in accordance with the law, and are liable to be quashed. 4. In any case and without prejudice, the Principal CIT, Dehrad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er replied that during the assessment proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the I.T. Act undertaken by the ITO, Ward-1, Roorkee, all due enquiries have been conducted by the ITO before conclusion of the assessment proceedings. It was replied that the deduction u/s. 80IC has been allowed by the ITO after due and detailed deliberation. Hence, it was submitted that the proposal to withdraw the deduction u/s. 80IC is only a substitutional judgment which is not permissible u/s. 263 of the I.T. Act. It was also submitted that the representation and the replies given by the Authorized Representative can be taken as authorized by the assessee. 5. The ld. PCIT, having not satisfied with the reply filed by the partner of the assessee firm held that, a. The notices issued u/s. 143(2) by the ITO was received unserved with the remark of the notice server dated 19.08.2013 that the premises have been locked and the postal authority reported that the name of the firm is unknown. b. Had the manufacturing activities were carried out as on date the notices could have been served. c. It is not worthy to conclude that the permanent closure of the business was done w.e.f. 31.03.2014. d. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing carried out from 31.12.2012 and the cancellation of registration on 04.03.2013 was also on record. Hence, the notices could not be served and it is a fact that the manufacturing activity was not carried out as on the date of issue of notice. It certainly does not give raise to a conclusion that there was no manufacturing activity during the year 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012. c. It is not worthy to conclude that the permanent closure of the business was done w.e.f. 31.03.2014. It is a fact on record that the permanent closure of the business was done w.e.f. 31.03.2014 and polynomial interpolation cannot be resorted to conclude that the assessee was not into manufacturing during the period 01.04.2011 to 31.12.2012. d. The authorization given by the assessee was not affixed by requisite court fee. Hence invalid. The validity or invalidity of the letter of authority cannot be a matter of proceedings u/s. 263 especially when the assessee reaffirmed the details filed by the AR. e. The assessee sold products to only two concerns at Bangalore namely, M/s. Creative International Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. The bills have been duly examined. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
