2015 (9) TMI 1423

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned CIT-A erred in not quashing the instant assessment framed on non existing person where both on the date of issuance of jurisdictional notice u/s 148 (29.03.2012) and framing of assessment order dated 25.03.2003, assessee already stood amalgamated with M/s Aditya Air Products (P) Limited by Hon'ble High Delhi Court order dated 16.11.2011, and same was duly intimated to Ld AO vide letter dated 19.04.2012 during assessment proceedings. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned CIT-A erred in not quashing the instant assessment framed on non existing person merely on basis that assessee has cooperated in assessment proceedings, not objected to proceedings, name of new company is mentioned in ass....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ion money dehors the fact that: i. In enquiry, bank has confirmed the aforesaid transaction to Ld AO; ii. In enquiry, share applicant u/s 133(6) has confirmed the subject transaction to Ld AD as evident from para 3.1 of AO's order; iii. The adversarial statement never mentions assesee's name and hence not reliable for reopening and addition (lack of nexus & untested allegation); iv. Assessee has adduced all relevant and required evidence to discharge its onus u/s 68 of the Act; v. No visible effort is made by Ld AD to validly convert and translate stated directions of CIT-II (Central) into requisite findings; 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, to, amend, modify, rescind, supple....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....company is a mere procedural defect which can be cured. The appeals were, thus, finally admitted and heard on the following questions of law. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the action of the AO in framing assessment in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd. after the said entity stood dissolved consequent upon its amalgamation with MCorp Private Ltd. wef 1. 7.2003, was a mere procedural defect? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that in view of the provisions of s.292B of the Act, the assessment, having in substance and effect, been framed on the amalgamated company which could not be regarded a....