9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1184X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ash deposit of Rs. 500000/- in the bank account. Based on these information, the AO recorded reasons and with the approval of competent authority issued notice dated 27.03.2018 u/s 148. Those notices were sent by speed post as well as through E-mail address [email protected] asking the assessee to E-file the return of income within 30 days of receipt of this notice. However, physical notice was received back un-served whereas notice sent through e- mail remained none complied. The AO issued further notices which also remained un-served. The AO downloaded relevant details from the MCA website and notice u/s 142(1) alongwith show cause u/s 144 of the Act was issued and sent to the assessee through its two directors at their residential address for compliance on 16.10.2018. These notices and show cause were also sent by e mail on 10.10.2018 for compliance on 16.10.2018. However, no compliance was made. In the given circumstances, the AO proceeded and completed the assessment proceeding by passing the order u/s 144 of the Act. In the impugned order the AO has noted, that out of interest of Rs. 39554/-, only Rs. 4480/- pertained to the AY 2011-12 which was added to the total inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant and its directors are responsible for income tax demand in terms of provision u/s 179 of the Act which provides as under: Liability of directors of private company in liquidation. - 179. -[(1)] Notwithstanding anything contained in the Companies Act, 1956- (1 of 1956), -[where any tax due- from a private company in respect of any income of any previous year or from any other company in respect of any income of any previous year during which such other company was a private company] cannot be recovered, then, every person who was a director of the private company at any time during the relevant previous year shall be jointly and severally liable for the payment of such tax unless he proves that the nonrecovery cannot be attributed to any gross neglect, misfeasance or breach of duty on his part in relation to the affairs of the company. 3.5 Even if, the appellant's name was struck off the register of company cannot preclude the revenue to proceed till the PAN is in existence and that the appellant failed to respond to the notice issued and served through e-mail by the AO which left no other option but to proceed with the assessment." 6. The Assessee is in appeal raisin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to add, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal." 7. Heard and perused the record. 8. On behalf of the assessee it was submitted that the company was incorporated on 05.07.2010 with the initial share of Rs. 1,00,000/- and unsecured loan of Rs. 4,00,000/- however, the company failed to get any orders therefore, incurred loss in financial year 2010-11. The Directors being new to business were not aware of necessary compliances and failed to file annual returns of the appellant company to registrar of Companies (ROC), therefore directors were disqualified on 01.11.2016 and then the name of company was struck off on 07.06.2017 from the register of the company maintained by ROC. It was submitted that no notice u/s 148 was received by the company and that Ld. AO when realized that name of company has been struck off and company stand dissolve initiated proceedings u/s 252(1) r.w.s. 252(3) of the Companies Act, 2013 for restoration of name of the company. Ld. Counsel relied the copy of petition available on page no. 12 to 27 of the paper book to contend that it was pleaded before Hon'ble NCLT that the restoration is being sought as the assessment was getting time bar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued to the banking companies. The copy of petition filed u/s 252(1) r.w.s. 252(3) of the Companies Act show that the Ld. Assessing Officer approached the NCLT in November, 2018 for restoration of the name of company because the proceedings of assessment of income of assessee company were pending and getting time barred by limitation on 31.12.2018 as per the provisions of section 153(2) of the Act . It appears that during pendency of the petition before the NCLT the impugned assessment order was passed. The copy of petition with the receipt placed on record, by the assessee shows that on 04.12.2018 notices were issued to Neelaish Tiwari, one of the directors of the company. 8. After taking into consideration the judgments relied by Ld. Counsel for the assessee, the Bench is of firm opinion that the same are not applicable on the present facts and circumstances. The judgments relied are in regard to companies which were dissolved pursuant to the orders of Hon'ble High Courts in Company Petition or the assessee had become non-existing entity, due to amalgamation of the company. However, here is the case where admittedly the name of directors of the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
