9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1256X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under:- 1. "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03.71,875/- on account of sale of immovable property even when the assessee had failed to file ITR in the relevant year and offer the same to tax? 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,03,71,875/- even when the assessee did not submit the correct facts regarding amalgamation during assessment proceedings u/s 147 and assessee had failed to discharge its onus regarding the same? 3. Wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vide notice dated 26.03.2021 and the assessment order was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act but however, in the name of M/s. Queen Gardens Pvt.Ltd. for the Assessment Year 2013-14 in question. 4. The assessee challenged the assessment order for AY 2013-14 drawn in the name of 'Queen Gardens Pvt.Ltd.' before the Ld.CIT(A) and contended that the 'Queen Gardens Pvt. Ltd.' being a non-existent company, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act giving rise to the jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act, is a complete non-starter at the threshold and consequent re-assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law. The Ld.CIT(A) found merit in the appeal of the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) has dealt with the issue as under:- 8. "I have carefully peruse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iled return for the A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013 in which the alleged sale consideration of Rs. 4,07,43,750/- received on the sale of property was disclosed and long term capital gain was offered to tax which is evident from the computation of income attached in the paper book at page-42 to 44. 9.1. The observations of the Assessing Officer and the submissions of the appellant have been carefully perused. It is observed that M/s. Queens Gardens Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 31.03.2001 and M/s. Uppal Agencies Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with the assessee company with effect from 30.11.2005. Accordingly, M/s. Queens Gardens Pvt. Ltd. was not in existence in the year under consideration and it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
