SHUBHMANGAL MERCANTILE P. LTD, MUMBAI V. ITO 1(3)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 6228/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55933 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 16-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G P TRIVEDI
• Assessee Lawyers: RAHUL LARHI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI T.R. SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO. 6228/MUM/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR-2003-04 M/S. SHUBHMANGAL MERCANTILE PVT.LTD., 401, KSHAMALAYA, 37, NEW MARINE LINES, MUMBAI-400 020 PAN-AACCS 5585 P VS. THE ITO-1(3)(2), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI RAHUL LARHI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI G.P.TRIVEDI DATE OF HEARING :16.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 25.11.2011 O R D E R PER B.R. MITTAL, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04 AGAINST ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DT.30.3.2010 DISPUTING CONFIRMA TION OF PENALTY OF RS.16,45,406/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT . 2. THIS APPEAL IS DELAYED BY 63 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF MR. CHITTARANJAN D. SHAH STATING TO BE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ERSTWHILE COMPANY FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. ON PER USAL OF AFFIDAVIT, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS WOUND-UP ON 20 TH JULY, 2005. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT APPLICATION WAS ALSO FILED BE FORE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES ON 30 TH JULY, 2005 TO STRIKE OFF NAME OF COMPANY FROM REGI STER OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, A QUERY WAS RAISED AS TO HOW THIS APPEAL COULD BE FILED IN THE NAME OF ERSTWHILE COMPANY AND THAT TOO BY SHRI CHITTARANJAN D. SHAH AS MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ERSTWHILE COMPANY S HUBHMANGAL MERCANTILE ITA NO. 6228/M/10 2 PVT. LTD. NOT ONLY THIS, IT IS OBSERVED THAT PENAL TY ORDER HAS ALSO BEEN PASSED BY AO IN THE NAME OF ERSTWHILE COMPANY ON 30 TH MARCH, 2009 I.E. LONG AFTER COMPANY WAS WOUND-UP. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING , IT WAS STATED THAT SAID FACTS WAS NOT BROUGHT BY ASSESSEE TO THE NOTIC E OF DEPARTMENT AND THUS ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF ERSTWHILE AS SESSEE-COMPANY. 3. BE THAT AS IT MAY THE ORDERS PASSED BY AO AS WEL L AS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) AND ALSO APPEAL FILED IN THE NAME OF A COMPA NY WHICH IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE AND THAT TOO SIGNED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR OF ERSTWHILE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE NOT VALID. THEREFORE APPEAL IS NOT MAI NTAINABLE. THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE ALSO NOT VALID ORDE RS. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HOWEVER, AO WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO TAKE NECESSARY ACTION, IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY IN THE NAME OF DIRECTOR(S) OF ERSTWHILE C OMPANY AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW AS ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS NO MORE IN EXISTENCE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 25 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2011 SD/- SD/- ( T.R. SOOD) (B.R. MITTAL ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 25 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 RJ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT-CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A)-CONCERNED 5. THE DR E BENCH TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, I.T.A.T, MUMBAI