Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2025 (2) TMI 452

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ncome Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter the ITAT) in ITA No. 3707/Del/2019 captioned Chemester Food Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. PCIT. The said appeal was filed by the respondent (hereafter CFIPL) assailing the order dated 29.03.2019 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 (hereafter PCIT) under Section 263 of the Act in respect of the assessment year (AY) 2014-15. 2. The learned PCIT had held that the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) was erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and therefore, had set aside the same. Additionally, the AO was directed to frame an assessment order afresh after conducting proper enquiries as specifically directed in the said order. 3. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t have the territorial jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal. THE CONTEXT 7. CFIPL was incorporated in January, 2014 and took over the business of Chemester Food Industry (hereafter the Firm) with effect from 01.04.2014 by the Business Takeover cum Succession Agreement dated 22.03.2014. 8. During the relevant assessment year (AY 2014-15), the Firm (M/s Chemester Food Industry) was engaged in the business of manufacturing and supplying of supplementary nutritious foods such as Amylase rich energy foods to Integrated Child Development Scheme (ICDS). The Firm filed its return of income for AY 2014-15 on 30.09.2014, declaring a total income of Rs. 34,68,09,650/-. 9. The return was processed under Section 143 (1) of the Act. But was, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ustry. It emphasised that the return was filed by the Firm (M/s Chemester Food Industry) and not by CFIPL. It is stated that the assessment order was also framed in the name of M/s Chemester Food Industry and not in the name of CFIPL and thus, the proceedings initiated against CFIPL under Section 263 of the Act were invalid. 14. CFIPL also contested the allegations that the AO had not conducted the necessary enquiry in regard to the unsecured loans of Rs. 15,16,71,781/ - from M/s Dhansamridhi Finance Pvt. Ltd. and Rs. 31,00,00,000/- from M/s Anukul Commercial Pvt. Ltd. which was alleged to be undisclosed income of CFIPL. 15. The learned PCIT passed an order dated 29.03.2019 under Section 263 of the Act holding that the assessment order da .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ution of Partnership on 31.03.2014, whereby the said firm was dissolved with effect from 31.03.2014 (after business hours). 19. As noted above, the assessment order dated 20.12.2016 was passed by an AO in Amritsar as the return for the AY 2014-15 was filed in the name of M/s Chemester Food Industry which on the date of filing of return, that is on 30.09.2014 stood dissolved. However, the return for AY 2014-15 was filed in the name of the Firm, after its dissolution and the AO exercising jurisdiction in respect of the Firm (M/s Chemester Food Industry) had, thus, framed the assessment order. 20. The said order was subject matter of revision under Section 263 of the Act which in turn was the subject matter of appeal before the learned ITAT, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the same assessment year(s)." 23. In view of the above, this court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as it emanates from the assessment order issued by the AO in Amritsar. 24. It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that it is not open for CFIPL to raise this issue as it had filed an appeal before the bench of learned ITAT in Delhi, premised on the basis that the said bench had the jurisdiction to entertain the same. It was further contended that if CFIPL contentions are accepted, the impugned order would also be without jurisdiction as the Delhi bench of the learned ITAT, would not have the jurisdiction to pass orders in respect of orders emanating from an assessment order passed by the AO in Amritsar. It is stated .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates