Indira Trading Corporation, Ranchi V. DCIT,Circle-1, Ranchi

ITA 128/RAN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1754 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL ACIT
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY PODDAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Procedural lapse; Competent authority; Reason to believe; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 201; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, . . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH , RANCHI , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 128 / RAN /20 1 9 ( / ASS ESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 20 1 1 ) INDIRA TRADING CORPORATION C/O SRI JAGMOHAN PODDAR, ADV SHREE MAHADEO COMPLEX, 10, SHRADHANAND ROAD, RANCHI - 834001 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, RANCHI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A ADFI 0834 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY PODDAR, ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K.MONDAL , ACIT( DR ) / DATE OF HEARING : 2 1 / 0 5 /201 9 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 / 0 5 /201 9 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), RANCHI , JHARKHAND, DATED 17.01.2019 PASSED IN FIRST APPEAL NO. CIT(A), RANCHI/10 133 /201 7 - 1 8 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 0 - 201 1 . 2. THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. FOR THAT THE EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER PASSED U/S 144/143(31/147 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 IS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION, CONTRARY TO LAW AND AGAINST THE F ACTS ON RECORD. 2. FOR THAT THE INITIATION OF VERY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 IS BAD IN LAW AS THE PROCEEDINGS WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE NON - EXISTENT PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. INDIRA TRADING CORPORATION BEING PAN NO. AADFI0834P, SOLELY RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE LD. COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT. RAIPUR, WITHOUT FORMING OWN REASON TO BELIEVE REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WHICH ITSELF IS BARRED UNDER THE LAW. 3. FOR THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, EVEN THEN IF THE DEPTT. WAS TO ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 THE ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 2 SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETOR SOMNATH AGARWAL HAVING PAN NO. ABOPA8809N. 4. FOR THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS RATHER BASED ON MERE SUSPICION OR SURMISES A ND AS PER REPORT OF THE LD. COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT. RAIPUR WITHOUT FORMING HER OWN BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW AS PER VARIOUS JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS. 5. FOR THAT THE I SSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, SHOWS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF JUDICIOUS MIND BY THE LD. DCIT. THE LD. DCIT ISSUED THE NOTICE AGAINST THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 WHICH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE DURING THAT PERIOD AND AS SUCH THE WHOL E PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BASELESS. 6. FOR THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234 B &C ON THE ASSESSED INCOME IS IN CONTRARY TO LAW IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AJAY PRAKASH VERMA DAT E D 25.07.2012 IN TAX APPEAL NO. 38 OF 2010 REPORTEDAIN 2013 (1) JCR 580 (JHR.) RELYING UPON SMT. TEJ KURNARI VRS. CIT (2001)114 TAXMAN 404 (PAT) (FB) CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COU RT VIDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2000 WHEREIN INTERALIA, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED ON THE RETURNED INCOME ONLY AND NOT ON THE ASSESSED INCOME. 5. FOR THAT ANY OTHER GROUND OR GROUNDS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. RELIEF SOUGHT FOR: - THAT THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER MAY BE FULLY SET ASIDE/DELETED AS THE SAME ARE ENTIRELY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, BASELESS & WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 3. BRIEF FACTS EMANATE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 2011, HOWEVER, THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR, CHHATISGARH SHARED A PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT M/S INDIRA TRADING CORPORATION HAD OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS FROM SYNDICATE CORPORATION, CHHATISGARH . THE AGGREGATE OF SUCH BOGUS PURCHASES WAS RS.15,45,998/ - . ACCORDINGLY, WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE PR.CIT, RANCHI U/S.151(1) OF THE ACT, ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE REQUIRING HIM TO FILE A RETURN OF INCOME. IN COMPLIANCE OF TH E SAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 3 NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED AGAINST THE NON - EXISTENT PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND ACCORDINGLY REQUESTED TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE EX - PARTE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.15,46,000/ - AS DEEMED INCOME U NDER SECTION 69C OF THE I.T. ACT,1961 FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010 - 11 . AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS T HE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 IS BAD IN LAW AS TH E PROCEEDINGS WAS INITIATED AGAINST THE NON - EXISTENT PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S. INDIRA TRADING CORPORATION BEING PAN NO. AADFI0834P, SOLELY RELYING UPON THE REPORT OF THE LD. COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT. RAIPUR, WITHOUT FORMING OWN REASON TO BELIEVE REGARDING ESCAPE MENT OF INCOME WHICH ITSELF IS BARRED UNDER THE LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY LD. AR THAT THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME, EVEN THEN IF THE DEPARTMENT WAS TO ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T.ACT,1961 THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF PROPRIETOR SOMNATH AGARWAL HAVING PAN NO. ABOPA8809N. LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, SHOWS TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF JUDICIOUS MIND BY THE LD. DCIT. THE LD. DCIT ISSUED THE NOTICE AGAINST THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM FOR THE ASS TT. YEAR 2010 - 11 WHICH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE DURING THAT PERIOD AND AS SUCH THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS INCLUDING THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE AND EX PARTE ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER, ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND BASELESS AND THE SAME MAY BE QUASHED. 6. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, NEITHER ANY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY PASSED THE ORDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7 . I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED IN THE RECORD OF T HE TRIBUNAL . LD. AR HAS PRODUCED THE PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE BENCH CONTAINING COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED, COPY OF PAN CARD AND COPY OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE GRANTED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAX DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR. FROM THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS MENTIONED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, I FIND THAT THE INITIALLY SOMNATH AGARWAL STARTED ITS BUSINESS W.E.F. 29.01.2002 UNDER HIS PROPRIETORSHIP HAVING PAN NO.ABOPA8809N AND ACCORDINGLY REGISTRATION WAS BEING MADE WITH THE CHATTIS G ARH COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE CONVERTED ITS CONSTITUTION OF BUSINESS FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM W.E.F.01.04 . 2010 , COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 8 & 9. THE ASSESSEE AFT ER CONVERTING INTO PARTNERSHIP FIRM W.E,F. 01,04.2.010 OBTAINED PAN NO - AADFI0834P AND ALSO GOT NECESSARY CORRECTION I N THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPARTMENT, RAIPUR. THE ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 5 CHANGES MADE I N THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPTT. RAIPUR CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AFORESAID FIRM WAS CONVERTED INTO PARTNERSHIP W,E.F . 01.04. 2010 . HOWEVER, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T.ACT, 19 6 1 UNDER THE PAN NO ABOPA8809N. THE ASSESSEE INCOMPLIANCE TO THE AFORES AID NOTICES , STATED THAT THE SAID PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS ITSELF INCORPORATED ON 0 1.04.2010 , THEREFORE , NO QUESTION OF ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AROSE IN THE SAID PAN AND AS SUCH REQUESTED TO DROP THE PROCEEDING INITIATED UNDER SEC. 14 8 OF THE ACT AGAINST THE N ON - EXISTENT PAN NO. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PASSED THE EX - PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER SOLELY RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE COMMERCIAL TAXES DEPT. RAIPUR THAT ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED BOGUS PURCHASE BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.15,45,998 / - FROM SYNDICATE CORPORATION DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 TO 2010 . IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO WENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY. 8. NOW, THE QUESTION ARISES BEFORE ME TO BE DECIDED AS TO WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.144 R.W.S.147 & 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO PURSUANT TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH WAS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE , WOULD BE VALID OR NOT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONVERTED FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN TO PARTNERSHIP FIRM W.E.F.01.04 . 2010 AND THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2017 IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM WHICH ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 6 WAS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER NOTICE 148 OF THE ACT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A NON - EXISTE NT FIRM WHICH IS NULL AND VOID . IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE COMPANY ARE SEPARATE JURIDICAL PERSONS. UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ALSO, THEY ARE ASSESSED SEPARATELY. RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 0500, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CONSIDERING JUDGMENTS OF THE VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS ALONG WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON A NON - EXISTENT PERSON IS NULL AND VOI D . THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER : 12. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD BE CURED BY INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. SECTION 292B OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: 292B. NO RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUE OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN PU RSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASONS OF ANY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSME NT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. 13. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT STATED THE EFFECT OF THIS PROVISION IN CIT V. NORTON MOTORS (2005) 275 ITR 595 I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER: A READING OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PROVIDED THAT SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, SECTION 292B CAN BE RELIED UPON FOR RESISTING A CHALLENGE TO THE NOTICE, ETC., ONLY IF THERE IS A TECHNICAL DEFECT OR OMISSION IN IT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION FROM WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE SAME CAN BE ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 7 RELIED UPON FOR CURING A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING TAKEN BY AN AUTHORITY SUFFERS FROM AN INHERENT LACUNA AFFECTING HIS/ITS JURISDICTION, THE SAME CANNOT BE CURED BY HAVING RESORT TO SECTION 292B. 14. THE ISSUE AGAIN CROPPED UP BEFORE THE COURT IN CIT V. HARJINDER KAUR (2009) 222 CTR (P&H) 254. THAT WAS A CASE WHERE RETURN IN QUESTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR VERIFIED IN TERMS OF THE MANDATE OF SECTION 140 OF THE ACT . THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH A RETURN CANNOT BE TREATED AS RETURN EVEN A RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS INHERENT DEFECT COULD NOT BE CURED IN SPITE OF THE DEEMING EFFECT OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE RETURN WAS ABSOLUTELY IN VALID AND ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE MADE ON A INVALID RETURN. IN THE PROCESS, THE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: HAVING GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IGNORE A DEFECT OF A SUBSTANTIVE NATURE AND IT IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE AFORESAID PROVISION CATEGORICALLY RECORDS THAT A RETURN WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID, IF THE SAME IN SUBST ANCE AND EFFECT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. INSOFAR AS THE RETURN UNDER REFERENCE IS CONCERNED, IN TERMS OF SECTION 140 OF THE 1961 ACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE EVEN A RETURN FILED BY THE RESPONDENT A SSESSEE, AS THE SAME DOES NOT EVEN BEAR HER SIGNATURES AND HAD NOT EVEN BEEN VERIFIED BY HER. IN THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ACCEPT THAT THE RETURN ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. THUS VIEWED, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT. THE RETURN UNDER REFERENCE, WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE REVENUE, WAS AN ABSOLUTELY INVALID RETURN AS IT HAD A GLARING INHERENT DEFECT WHICH COULD NOT BE CURED IN SPITE OF THE DEEMING EFFECT OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT. 15. LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE OF SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH V. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 396, THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALIDITY OF ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND WHEN SUCH A NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED AND ASSESSMENT MADE, SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CURED UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THIS PROVISIONS CONDONES THE INVALIDITY WHICH ARISES MERELY BY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN A NOTICE, IF IN SUBSTANC E AND EFFECT IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. SINCE NO VALID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TO REASSESS THE INCOME, ALL THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NULL AND VOID AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF IRREGULARITY. THER EFORE, SECTION 292B OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION. ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 8 16. WHEN WE APPLY THE RATIO OF AFORESAID CASES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. THE FRAMING OF ASSESS MENT AGAINST A NON - EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON. 17. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY UNSU STAINABLE. WE, THUS, DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ALLOW THESE APPEALS. 9 . THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V. SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 285 OF 2014 ALONG WITH OTHER CONNECTED APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 0 2 - 11 - 2017 BY DISMISSING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, I, HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.144 R.W.S.147 & 143(3) OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHICH WAS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE , IS NULL AND VOID. 10 . SINCE I HAVE ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. U/S.144 R.W.S.147 & 143(3) OF THE ACT ON THE QUESTION OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT BY THE AO IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHI CH WAS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THEREFORE, OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT SURVIVE. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 / 05 / 201 9 . SD/ - ( CHANDRA MOHAN G ARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / RANCHI ; DATED 22 / 05 /201 9 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA , S R.P.S. ITA NO. 128 / RAN /201 9 9 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, RANCHI 1. / THE APPELLANT - . INDIRA TRADING CORPORATION , C/O SRI JAGMOHAN PODDAR, AD V SHREE MAHADEO COMPLEX, 10, SHRADHANAND ROAD, RANCHI - 834001 2. / THE RESPONDENT - DCIT, CIRCLE - 1, RANCHI 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//