TMI Blog2022 (3) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company petition for scheme of amalgamation was pending before Hon ble Delhi High Court and after issuance of the notice on 25.08.2014 the assessee by letter dated 14.09.2014 had intimated of the amalgamation which was effective from 01.04.2013. Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Enfotainment Ltd. vs. CIT[ 2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has held that the framing of assessment against non-existing entity / person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but jurisdictional defect. This order has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, New Delhi vs. Spice Infotainment Ltd. [ 2017 (12) TMI 754 - SC ORDER] As a matter of fact, in a case reported in NIRVANA LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar Jain had been providing accommodation entries through a large number of dummy companies floated by him or his associates. The name of the assessee company i.e. M/s. Home Coziness Resorts Holidays Pvt. Ltd. also figured in the list of beneficiaries of Share Capital, Premium / Loan. The assessing Officer observed that the assessee had taken accommodation entries and an amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- represented unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act for the assessment year 2010-11. Therefore, proceedings u/s 148 of the Act was initiated. Notice u/s 133(6) of the Act was issued to ascertain and genuineness creditworthiness of the transaction. Based upon the respondents of the assessee and the analysis of material, the Assessing Officer co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment initiated on a non-existing entity and therefore reassessment proceedings are void ab initio. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reopening by the AO and consequent reassessment without complying with the statutory conditions prescribed under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Act is bad in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of an amount of ₹ 70,00,000/- made by AO on account of share capital under Section 68 of the Act. (ii) That the said addition has been confirmed rejecting the detailed explanation and evidences brought on record by the assessee to prove the identity and creditworthiness of the shareholders as well as the genuineness of the transaction. 9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. AO merely relying on the report of the investigation wing and without application of his own mind. 10. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other hand, Ld. DR contended that the assessee had not raised this issue at relevant stage of assessment or even before Ld. CIT(A). it was also submitted that 6. Appreciating the arguments and on consideration of the matter on record it can be observed that the original return of income for assessment year 2010-11 was filed by the assessee on 05.01.2011. On analysis of certain information and having reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment notice was issued on 25.08.2014 u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee vide letter dated 29.05.2015 raised objections to the reopening of assessment which were disposed of on 01.06.2015. 6.1 Then on page no. 18 of the paper book there is a letter dated 14.09.2014 on behalf o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich was effective from 01.04.2013. 7.1 Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Enfotainment Ltd. vs. CIT 2011 (8) TMT 544 has held that the framing of assessment against non-existing entity / person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but jurisdictional defect. This order has been upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court of India in CIT, New Delhi vs. Spice Infotainment Ltd. 2017 (12) TMI 754-SC. 7.2 As a matter of fact, in a case reported in 2018(3)TMI1879, ITA no. 4793/Del/2017 with regard to an assessee company M/s. Nirvana Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., which had also merged with TTJ Impex Pvt. Ltd and was one of the Co petitioner of present assessee in the Company petition no 644 of 2013, a Coordinate B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
