Income Tax Officer-6(4), Kanpur V. M/s Prince Tractors Pvt. Ltd.,

ITA 511/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 51123714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SWARN SINGH; SUDHINDRA JAIN CAS
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.511/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 M/S PRINCE TRACTORS PVT. LTD., C/O RAM GOPAL AGARWAL, BANK OF BARODA BUILDING, TEHSIL RATH, DISTT. PAN AADCP 3078 K VS INCOME TAX OFFICER - 6(4), KANPUR (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI R AJNISH YADAV, DR APPELLANT BY SHRI SWARN SINGH AND SHRI SUDHINDRA JAIN, CAS. RESPONDENT BY 14/10/2015 DATE OF HEARING 21/10/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JM. 1. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, INTERALIA ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE REASSESSMENT ORDE R PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 AND HOLDING THE SAME AS VOID- AB- INITIO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REFERENCE AS WELL AS MERITS OF THE CASE. 2 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED U/S 143(3)/147 AND HOLDING THE SAME AS VOID-AB-INITIO W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NOTICE WAS VALIDLY SERVE D ON THE ASSESSEE SPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDI CIAL PRONOUNCEMENT PARTICULARLY IN THE RATIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PREMIUM CAPITAL MARKET & INVESTMENT LTD. REPORTED IN (MP) 275 ITR 260. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PA SSED U/S 143(3)/147 AND HOLDING THE SAME AS VOID-AB-INITIO W ITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETUR N OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITS CONDUCT ITSELF ABUNDANT THE RIGHT TO CHALLENGE NON SERVICE OF NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRON OUNCEMENT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REFERENCE. 4. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS , UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO B E RESTORED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE AND/OR ADD ANY FRESH GROUND AS AND WHEN IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY TO DO SO. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN DISSOLVED ON 17.03.2011 UNDER EES 2011 SCHEME IN AC CORDANCE WITH CIRCULAR NO.6/2010 DATED 03.12.2010 ISSUED BY GOVER NMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS AND LAW. THE DISSOLUT ION OF THE COMPANY WAS INFORMED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND WAS A LSO PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. THESE FACTS ARE BROUGHT TO TH E NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS VIDE 3 LETTER DATED 08.11.2013. THE COPY OF THE SAME IS PL ACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 34 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THE FACTS OF DISSOLUTION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS BROUGHT TO NOTICE OF THE AO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. THE DISSOLVED COMPANY VIDE ORDER DATE D 28.03.2014 AGAINST WHICH AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A COGNIZANCE OF THESE FACTS AND HAVING RE LIED UPON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS HAS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VOID-AB-INITIO AND ACCO RDINGLY ANNULLED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.03.2014. NOW THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE F URTHER CONTENDED THAT SINCE NO ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE PASSED AGAINS T THE DISSOLVED COMPANY, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ANNULLED THE ASSESS MENT. 3. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPO N THE ORDER OF THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QU ERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHEN THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS BEEN DISSOLVED AND NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE FRAMED AGAI NST DISSOLVED COMPANY, HOW THE APPEAL CAN BE FILED BY THE DISSOLV ED COMPANY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. NO SATISFACTORY REPLY HAS COM E FROM THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT EVEN IF ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT VALID IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL CANNOT BE FILED BY DISSOLVED COMPAN Y THEN HOW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE HELD TO BE VALID. IN THE LI GHT OF THESE FACTS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS ORDER OF THE AO MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH DIRECTION NOT TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE D ISSOLVED COMPANY 4 AND IF HE WANTS TO ENFORCE THE RECOVERY OF THE OUTS TANDING DUES THAT CAN ONLY BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. HAVING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT ALL THESE FACTS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CANNOT BE FRAMED AGAINST DISSO LVED COMPANY AND SIMILARLY DISSOLVED COMPANY CANNOT FILE AN APPEAL B EFORE THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS ALSO N OT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS O F THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS AO AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW, IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE FRAMED AG AINST THE DISSOLVED COMPANY TO ENFORCE THE RECOVERY IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/- SD/- (A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 21/10/2015 AKS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGIST RAR