TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 131X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ear under consideration. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction to reopen the assessment, in the instant case, was bad in law. Hence, the impugned order of reassessment is hereby cancelled. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 121/Asr./2017 - - - Dated:- 21-2-2019 - Sh. N. S. Saini, Accountant Member And Sh. N. K. Choudhry, Judicial Member For The Assessee : Dr. Rakesh Gupta For The Revenue : Sh. M. P. Singh, CIT DR ORDER Per N. S. Saini, AM: This is an appeal f i led by the assessee against the order of CIT(A), Bathinda dated 30.01.2017. 2. The assessee has taken fol lowing grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld. CIT(A), Bathinda erred on facts and law in confirming the action of the AO of assessing the income vide order u/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961 dated 14-03-2016 at ₹ 16,73,54,700/- as against the income declared in the return at ₹ 1,66,42,143/-. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and law in confirming the validity of proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 by the Ld. AO despite the established fact that notice u/s 148 of the Act was not served in accordance with the provisions of section 282 of the IT Act, 1961. The spe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. At the time of hearing, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which reads as under: 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in conf irming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 to re-open the assessment and passing the impugned reassessment order, more so when such jurisdiction could not be assumed in law and reassessment order could not be passed in law, inter-al ia for the fol lowing reasons: a) Because the objections to the re-opening were not disposed. b) Because the jurisdiction was assumed qua non-existent entity. 2. In any view of the matter and any case, action of Ld. AO in re-opening the impugned assessment and passing the impugned assessment order is bad in law. It is submitted that the above grounds are purely legal, go to the root of the matter and do not require any fresh facts to be investigated and in any case are expansion of Ground Nos. 1 and 2 of appeal memo. These may please be admitted in view of the decisions of Hon ble Supreme Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat it was well within the knowledge of the department that the f irm was dissolved on 31.12.2011 and even after that the Assessing Off icer passed reassessment order on 14.03.2016 and hence, the reassessment order of the AO was bad in law as it was passed on a f irm which was already dissolved prior to the date of passing of the assessment order. For this, rel iance was placed on the following decisions: Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT [(1990)186 ITR 0278] (SC) CIT vs. M/s Spice Enfotainment LTD., Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014, Order Dated 02.11.2017 (SC) Spice Infotainment LTD vs. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.) PCIT vs. Nokia Solutions Network India (P) LTD., (2018) 90 taxmann.com 369 (Del.) Nokia Solutions Network India PVT. LTD. vs. DCIT, (2017) 50 CCH 0177, ITAT Delhi. CIT vs. Micra India (P.) Ltd., (2015) 231 Taxman 0809 (Del.) PCIT vs. Kaizen Products (P) Ltd., ITA No. 466/2017 dated 25.07.2017 (Del.) PCIT vs. Images Credit and Portfol io (P) Ltd., ITA Nos. 582,584,431 - 433,533/2015 dated 19.08.2015 (Del.) M/s Images Credit Portfol io (P) Ltd., ITA Nos. 5301 - 5306, 5418- 5423/Del/2013 dated 19.12.2014, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eal and issue of val idity of Assessment Order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was inval id. This was not a case wherein notice u/s 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provision of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and i l legal. 8. The Ld. Counsel thereafter submitted that the assessee raised objection to the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act on 08.03.2016 wherein the assessee raised objection to the reopening of the assessment. The Assessing of f icer has not disposed of f the objection of the assessee and therefore, the reassessment order passed on 14.03.2016 was bad in law. For this, he relied on the following decisions: PCIT Vs Tupperware India (P.) Ltd. (2016) 284 CTR 0068 (Del.) Shiva Rubber Industries Vs ITO in ITA No. 2212/2015, order dated 25.04.2017, ITAT Delhi S. Power Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO in ITA No 6544/2014, order dated 29.04.2016, ITAT Delhi Suresh Chandra Vs ITO in ITA No 3061/2012, order dated 13.0 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y preceding assessment year 2013-14 prof it rate of 3.09% was accepted by the revenue in an order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. Further, it was submitted that assessee had already shown an income of ₹ 24,42,562/- on the amount of ₹ 15 crores received from PACL and therefore, making addition of ₹ 15 crores separately to the income of the assessee was not justif ied. 11. On the other hand, the DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and materials avai lable on record. During the year under consideration, the assessee f irm was engaged in business of civi l contract work. The original return of income was fi led by the assessee firm on 29.09.2011 disclosing total income at ₹ 1,66,42,143/-. The assessee f irm was converted into a Private Limited Company on 31.12.2011. Thereafter a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 13.02.2015 in pursuance to which impugned order of reassessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act was passed on 14.03.2016. 13. The legal contention of the assessee are that notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 13.02.2015 was issued in the name of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on was conducted on the business premises of the above noted assessee at House No. 21605, Street No. 7, Power House Road, Bathinda. During the course of survey a number of incriminating documents found and impounded. During survey and post-survey investigations, statements of Sh. Puneet Garg and Sh. Harwinder Pal Singla, Directors of the company have been recorded and confronted the issue with regard to development of land of the PACL by them against which they have received ₹ 15 crores from the PACL. In his statement, the assessee was asked whether they have visited the site which was claimed to be developed by them or the subcontractors who has executed such contract on behalf of their firm/company and was also confronted the shape and nature of land at the time or before entering into agreement for development. However, it was found that assessee was not aware of the land- which was stated to be developed on behalf of PACL and even not aware the nature of land. From the above discussion, it is clear that the above noted company has received an amount of ₹ 15 crores from the PACL whereas from the enquiries, it was emerged that the assessee was not able to justif ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of Sh. Puneet Garg and Sh. Harwinder Pal Singla, Directors of the company have been recorded and confronted the issue with regard to development of land of the PACL by them against which they have received ₹ 15 crores from the PACL. In his statement, the assessee was asked whether they have visited the site which was claimed to be developed by them or the subcontractors who has executed such contract on behalf of their firm/company and was also confronted the shape and nature of land at the time or before entering into agreement for development. However, it was found that assessee was not aware of the land which was stated to be developed on behalf of PACL and even not aware the nature of land. From the above discussion, it is clear that the above noted company has received an amount of ₹ 15 crores from the PACL whereas from the enquiries, it was emerged that the assessee was not able justify the work done for the company of PACL Ltd.. 16. The above shows that the AO has recorded only his conclusion after conclusions in the recordings and has not recorded any cogent and relevant reason and material for the same. From the reading of the above, it could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
