DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Silicon Graphics System (I) Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 574/DEL/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1362 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DR SUDHA KUMARI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Question of law
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.571 TO 576/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06,2006-07 & 2008-09 ACIT, DIMENSION APPARELS PVT. LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE-21, AMALGAMATED WITH BS INFRATCH NEW DELHI. V. PVT. LTD., F-6/5, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI. AND C.O.NOS.68 TO 73/DELHI2012 IN I.T.A. NO.571 TO 576/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04,2004-05, 2005-06,2006-07 & 2008-09 DIMENSION APPARELS PVT. ACIT, LTD. F-6/5, VASANT VIHAR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI. V. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO.AACCD-3447-K APPELLANT BY : SHRI KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : DR. SUDHA KUMARI, CIT-DR. ORDER PER BENCH: ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 2 THESE ARE BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 24.11.201. THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS TO THESE APPEALS. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ALL TH E APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEALS AND SIMILAR CROSS OBJECTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY REVENUE AND ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ALL YEARS. TH E REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED CIT (A)S ORDER VIDE GROUND NO.1 REGARDING UPHOLDIN G THAT ASSESSMENT ON A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED/ AMALGAMATED IS IN VALID. THE OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY REVENUE RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITIONS O N MERITS. ON THE OTHER HAND, ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS REGARDING INITI ATION OF PROCEEDINGS ON LEGAL AND FACTUAL BASIS. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEI ZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT ON SHRI BK DHING A, SMT. POONAM DHINGA & M/S MADHUSUDAN BUILDCON PVT. LTD. ON 20.10.2008. DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THEIR RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AT F-6/5, VASANT VIHA R, NEW DELHI CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED. O N THE BASIS OF THOSE DOCUMENTS SO FOUND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE U/S 153C READ WIT H SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2008-09. THE A SSESSMENT IN THESE YEARS WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING AD DITIONS FOR PURCHASES MADE IN CASH AND SOME OTHER MISC. DISALLOWANCE WERE ALSO MADE. THE LD CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS AND ALSO HELD THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS IT HAD ALREADY AMALGAM ATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY AND THEREFORE, VIDE PARAS 19 & 20 AT PAGES 28 TO 31 OF HIS ORDER ADJUDICATED ON GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE A S UNDER:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF MASTER DATA OF R EGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. DELHI AND HARYANA, FILED AT (PAGE NO 101 OF THE PAPER BOOK.) AS PER THE SAME THE STATUS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY IS MENTIONED AS AMALGAMATED MEANING THEREBY DISSOLVE D. ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 3 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE APPELL ANT COMPANY M/S DIMENSION APPARELS PRIVATE LIMITED STOOD DISSOL VED ON AMALGAMATION WITH M/S B. S. INFRATECH PVT. LTD. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT AFTER FILING THE RET URN OF INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNDER PROTEST, TH E APPELLANT COMPANY INFORMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE FA CT OF THE AMALGAMATION VIDE ITS LETTER DATE NIL FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,196 1. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN AMALGAMATED WITH M/S B. S. INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VIDE DELHI HIGH COURT ORDER DATED 07.12.2009 PASSED U/S 391 (2 ) AND 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, COPY OF THE SAME IS SENCLO SED. 20. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS REPORT HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT CO. M/S DIMENS ION APPARELS PVT. LTD. WAS AMALGAMATED DURING THE A. Y. 2009-10. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, PASSED U/S 153 C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 THE NAME OF THE TRANSFEREE COMP ANY I.E. M/S B.S. INFRATECH PVT. LTD. THE TRANSFEREE COMPANY AND IT (THE TRANSFEREE CO,) DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY PURSUED THE FOLL OWING CASE LAWS:- A) IMPSAT (PVT.) LTD. VS. ITO, ITAT, DELHI A BENCH I TA NO. 1430/DEL/2004 DATED 28.07.2004; 2005 TTJ (DEL) 552: (2004) 91 ITD 354 (DEL).; B) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. VIVED MARKETING SERVI CING PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 273/2009; C) CIT VS. EXPRESS NEWSPAPERS LTD, (1960) 40 ITR 38 (M AD) : (1960) TAX 13(3)-282; D) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. AMARCHAND N. SHROFF, (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); E) I K AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH T AX, KOL-III, JUDGMENT DATED 11 TH MARCH,2011. F) TRIVENI ENGINEERING AND INDUSTRIES LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITAT DELHI WT BENCH, (2 005) 93 TTJ (DEL) 806: (2005) 93 ITD 561; G) CENTURY ENKA LTD. VS DEPUTY COMMISSION OF .ON 14 FEBRUARY,2006: 2006 101 ITD MUM, 2008 303 ITR 1 MUM ; H) PAMPASAR DISTILLERY LTD. VS. ACIT, ITAT, KOLKATA E BENCH, (2007) 15 SOT 331 (KOL); I) CIT VS. KURBAN HUSSAIN IBRAHIMJI MITHIBORWALA, 1973 CTR (SC) 454; (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC); ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 4 J) SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. VS CIT ITA 475 AND 476 OF 2011 THE GIST OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DELH I HIGH COURTS ORDER IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.273/2009 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS VIVED MARKETING SERVICING PVT. LTD. IS REPRO DUCED HEREUNDER:- WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER OF ASS ESSMENT AGAINST THE RESPONDENT COMPANY, IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISSOLVED AND STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER OF THE REGISTRAR OF COM PANIES U/S 560 OF THE COMPANIES ACT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE T RIBUNAL RIGHTLY HELD THAT THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY ASS ESSMSENT ORDER PASSED AGAINST THE COMPANY WHICH WAS NOT IN E XISTENCE AS ON THAT DATE IN THE EYES OF LAW IT HAD ALREADY BEEN DISSOLVED. THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON ITS EARLIER DECISION IN IMPSAT PVT. LTD. VS. ITO 276 ITR 136 (AT). WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TR IBUNAL IS PERFECTLY VALID AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NO SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISE. THE GIST OF THE JURISDICTIONAL DELHI TRIBUNALS ORD ER IN THE CASE OF IMPSAT (PVT.) LTD. VS ITO ITAT, DELHI A BENCH (2005) 92 TTJ (DEL) 552 IS RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER:- HELD ASSESSMENT VALIDITY- ASSESSMSENT ON DISSOLVED COM PANY- ASSESSMENT ON A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED AN D STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES U/S 560 OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, IS INVALID, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY PARTICIPATED IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS- THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE IT ACT TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON A DISSOLVED COMPANY-IT IS NOT A CASE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF BUSINESS SO AS TO ATTRACT SECTION 176 NOR DOES SECTION 159 CURE THE LACUNA CONCLUSION: ASSESSMENT ON A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED AN D STRUCK OFF THE REGISTER OF COMPANIES U/S 560 OF THE COMPANIES ACT,1956, IS INVALID, EVEN THOUGH THE COMPANY PARTICIPATED IN AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; IT IS NOT A CASE OF DISCONTINUANCE OF BUSINESS SO AS TO ATTRACT SECTION 176 NOR DOES SECTION 159 CURE THE L ACUNA. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VIEWS OF THE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. VS CIT 18 6 ITR 278. IT IS HELD IN M. H. SMITH (PLANT HIRE) LTD. VS D. L. MAINWARING (T/A INSHORE), 1986 BCLC342 (CA) THAT ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 5 ONCE A COMPANY IS DISSOLVED IT BECOME A NON EXIST ENT PARTY AND THEREFORE NO ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN ITS NAME. THU S AN INSURANCE WHICH WAS SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER INSUR ED COMPANY WAS HELD NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION I N THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AFTER THE LATTER HAD BEEN DISSOLVED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN MIND THE VIEWS OF VARIOUS COURTS AND TRIBUNALS PARTICULA RLY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, JURISDICTIONAL DELHI HIGH COURT AND T RIBUNAL AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, A COMPAN Y, INCORPORATED UNDER THE INDIAN COMPANIES ACT IS A JU DICIAL PERSON. IT TAKE ITS BIRTH AND GETS LIFE WITH INCORPORATION. IT DIES WITH THE DISSOLUTION AS PER THE PROVISION OF THE COMPANIES A CT. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY CEASES TO EXIST I N THE EYES OF LAW. HAVING REGARD TO THIS CONSEQUENCE PROVIDED IN LAW, ASSESSMENT UPON A DISSOLVED COMPANY IS IMPERMISSIBL E AS THERE IS NO PROVISION IN INCOME TAX TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT TH EREUPON. THEREFORE, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT ASSESSME NT ON A COMPANY, WHICH HAS BEEN DISSOLVED/ AMALGAMATED U/S 391 AND 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 IS INVALID. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE I.T ACT, TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON AN AMALGAMATING COMPANY (TRANSFEROR/DISSOLVED COMPANY),EVEN THOUGH THE APPE LLANT COMPANY PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASES OF A IMPSAT (PVT.) LTD. VS ITO, ITAT, DELHI A BENCH ITA NO. 1430/ DEL/2004 DATED 28.07.2004; 2005 TTJ ( DEL) 552: (2004) 91 ITD 354 (DEL) B) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX VS. VIVED MARKETING SERVICING PVT. LTD. ITA NO. 273/2009 AND C ) SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. VS CIT ITA 475 & 476 OF 2011, BY THE HONBLE DELHI COURT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT COMPANY STOOD DISSOLVED ON 07.12.2009 ON AMALGAMATION WITH M/S B. S. INFRATECH PVT. LTD., IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT COM PANY AND HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON THE APPELLANT C OMPANY IS A NULLITY. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DECIDE D IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN RES PECT OF ALL YEARS AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS TO THESE AP PEALS. ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 6 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT LD CIT(A) H AD WRONGLY RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW OF MICRA INDIA PVT. LTD. A S IN THAT CASE THIS GROUND WAS NEVER TAKEN. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS IN ITS OWN NAME AND HAD ALSO PARTICIPATED I N THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE COMPANY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD USED CORRECT NOMENCLATURE IN WHICH HE HAS WRITTEN THE NA ME OF ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD AMALGAMATE D WITH M/S BS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SHE ARGUED THAT SINCE NAME OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY WAS ALSO THERE IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER THEREFORE, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT PROCEEDINGS WER E RIGHTLY STARTED AND CONCLUDED. CONTINUING HER ARGUMENTS SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD USED THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY M/S BS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. AND IN THIS RESP ECT SHE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ALSO APPE AL DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE LD CIT(A). SHE FURTHER STATED THAT AS SESSEE HAS BEEN CHANGING ITS STATUS AS PREVIOUSLY IT WAS KNOWN AS P STC & IP LTD. AND AFTER THAT AMALGAMATED WITH M/S BS INFRATECH PVT. L TD. AND NOW AMALGAMATED WITH SURIDHI INFRACON PVT. LTD. IN VIE W OF THE ABOVE FACTS, SHE ARGUED THAT LD CIT(A) HAD IGNORED ALL TH ESE FACTS WHILE NULLIFYING THE ASSESSMENT ON PURELY ACCADEMIC BASI S AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE LD CIT( A) ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESE NT APPEALS. ON MERITS OF THE CASE, SHE DISTINGUISHED WITH THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 7 BY LD AR AND IN VIEW OF THESE ARGUMENTS SHE SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BE ADMITTED AND CROSS OBJECT IONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. THE LD AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE FA CT OF ASSESSEE HAVING MERGED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY WAS DULY INTIMAT ED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THIS RESPECT OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO PARA 19 OF LD CIT(A)S ORDER WHERE THE LD CIT(A) HA S MADE FINDINGS OF FACT. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICE R SHOULD HAVE INITIATED PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE AMALGAMATED COMPA NY AS THE ASSESSEE HAD BECOME NON EXISTENT AT THE TIME OF ISS UE OF NOTICE U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. OUR ATTENTI ON WAS INVITED TO PAGE 2 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HIMSELF ADMITS THE FACT THAT COMPANY HAD ALREADY MERGED WIT H M/S B. S. INFRASTRUCTURE (PVT.) LTD. W.E.F.01.04.2008. REGARDING CONTENTION OF LD DR THAT LD CIT(A) HAD WR ONGLY RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW OF M/S MICRA INDIA PVT. LTD, HE S UBMITTED AND CITED FROM THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPHS OF ITAT ORDER IN THIS RESPECT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT RETURNS WERE FILED BY THE NO N EXISTENT COMPANY JUST TO COMPLY THE NOTICES ISSUED IN THIS B EHALF AND RETURNS WERE FILED IN PROTEST WHICH WAS NOTED ON THE ACKNOW LEDGEMENT ITSELF WHEREIN IT WAS CONTESTED THAT THE NOTICES WE RE BAD AND ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. REGARDING ARGUMENT OF LD DR THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHANGING ITS STATUS FREQUENTLY, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE OBSERVATIONS HAVE NO BEARING ON THE FINDING O F THE IMPUGNED ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 8 ORDER. THE LD AR FURTHER RELIED UPON THE CASE LAW A ND ON MERITS ALSO BUT HIS BASIC ARGUMENT REMAINED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NULL AND VOID AB INITO AS THE COMPANY WAS NON EXISTENT. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE O BSERVE THAT NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 31.12.2010 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003- 04 AS IS APPARENT FROM PAPER BOOK PAGE 1 FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO LETTER DATED 01.11.2010 OF ACI T CENTRAL, CIRCLE-21, NEW DELHI, AT PAGE 68 OF PAPER BOOK HAD SUBMITTED AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN AMALGAMATED WITH M/S BS INFRATECH PVT. LTD. VID E DELHI HIGH COURT DATED 07.12.2009 PASSED U/S391(2) AND 39 4 OF COMPANIES ACT 1956, COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN ENCLO SED WHILE FILING REPLY TO ASSESSING YEAR 003-04. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOTED THAT COMPANY HAD MERGED WITH M/S BS INFRATECH PVT. LTD., W.E.F. 1.4.2008. THEREFORE, IT WAS VERY MUCH IN THE KNOWLE DGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NON EXISTENT. THEREFO RE, HE SHOULD HAVE INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE AMALGAMA TED COMPANY ONLY. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INDICATED ON THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RETURNS THAT RETURNS ARE BEING FILED UNDER PROTEST. THE LD CIT (A) AFTER RELYING UPON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS HAS ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 9 RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON TH E APPELLANT COMPANY WAS A NULLITY. DURING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US , THE LD AR HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF ORDER PASSED BY DELHI BENCH G IN I.T.A. NO.S 565 TO 570DELL/2012 IN RESPECT OF SPN MILK PRODUCT INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. THE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE WAS ALSO INITIATE D UNDER SAME CIRCUMSTANCES BY VIRTUE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERA TION ON THE SAME PERSON AS IN THE CASE OF PRESENT APPEALS. MORE OVER, IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD AMALGAMATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY AND ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT EVEN THEN HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS TO BE NULL AND VOID AFTER RELYING UPON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 5 HAD ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACT THA T ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME AND HAD ALSO PARTICIPATED I N THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF LD DR THAT ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE THE P RESENT APPEALS WERE DISTINGUISHABLE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRIBUNAL UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAD ALREADY CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT AND HAD DECIDED AGAINST IT. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE VARIOU S JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN THIS REGARD WE UPHOLD THE ORDER O F LD CIT(A) ON THIS POINT AND REJECT GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUES APPEALS. IN OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLE NGED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON MERITS. HOWEV ER, ONCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THE VARIOU S ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT SURVIVE, THERE FORE, THE OTHER ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 10 GROUNDS OF REVENUE APPEALS HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. WITH REGARD TO CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE, NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS WERE ADVANCED BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, PRESUME THAT THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS N OT PRESSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST DAY OF JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (U.B.S. BEDI) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 21 .6.2013. HMS/S.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING ITA NO571 TO576../DEL/2012 11 DATE OF DICTATION DATE OF TYPING DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.