TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (7) TMI 578
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d notice was issued and served on the person liable to assessed under the provisions of the Act as the company was already defunct on the date the jurisdiction was assumed by issue of notice u/s 148 dt 24.3.2006 and learned CIT(A) has failed to adjudicate the matter on this ground, specifically raised and argued before him. Jurisdiction on Enhancement 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, Learned CIT(A) has erred and was not justified in enhancement of income on the matters which were not part of the appeal of the appellant without any cogent reasons, basis or contrary evidence and thus learned CIT(A) has exceeded his jurisdiction u/s 250 of the Act in enhancing the assessment in a gross arbitrary manner. 3. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....amount of Rs. 3 lacs received from MS Leasing Pvt Ltd, as per order of assessment, towards sale consideration of shares held by the appellant, represented income of the appellant from undisclosed sources u/s 68 of the Act. 8. The impugned assessment is bad on facts and in law on the ground of equity & arbitrariness as the lower authorities have failed to cast any reason, inspite of specific request made in this regard, as to why such transaction referred by AO ward 6(1) was being treated as bogus or to provide the copies of the evidences, if any, to result in formation of opinion for reasons to believe, before assuming jurisdiction u/s 147. 9. The lower authorities have erred and were not justified in including the impugned amount of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Ld. counsel referred to page 71 of the PB, wherein the reply filed on 5.4.2006 in response to notice u/s 148 is contained wherein the assessee had, inter alia, stated as under: "In this regard, we would like to inform you that the captioned assessee company was incorporated under the Companies Act. 1956 on 03.10.1994. It is also mentioned that the said company has now become defunct w.e.f. 30.11.2003 under the Companies Act. 1956 and thus a service of the said (f) notice u/s 148 on the said defunct company. which is non-existent in the eyes of law. is bad in law at the first instance and thus any proceedings emanating from a bad notice would also be bad and co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hich the appellant company is said to have been "dissolved from the date of this publication in Gazette Notification". Only an unauthenticated copy of this notice was filed and the original was not produced. The copy filed is not authenticated. In view of these facts, this copy cannot be accepted as authentic. 4.2 Further, with reference to the copy of notice referred to above, the appellant has failed to file a copy of the Gazette notification showing the date of dissolution. He has therefore, failed to substantiate his claim. Even the copy of notice from the Registrar of Companies filed by the appellant shows that the date of this notice, is after the date of issue and service of notice u/s 148. The appellant has not filed any authenti....