2018 (8) TMI 1731

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd 000101235193 (NRE) with ICICI Bank, Cenotaph Road Branch, Chennai and bearing No.37680100000025 with Bank of Baroda, Adyar Branch, Chennai. 2. The case of the petitioner is as follows: The petitioner is a Director of a Company called M/s. Infodrive Software Limited, a Public Limited Company. An order of assessment was passed against the said Company in respect of the assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12 dated 15.12.2011. The said Company filed an Appeal before the CIT Appeals, challenging the said assessment order. The First Appellate Authority dismissed the Appeal on 01.01.2014. Challenging the same, the said Company filed further appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA.Nos.397 and 398/Mds/2014. The Tribunal, by order d....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....he Apex Court reported in 1993 Supp (1) SCC 604 (M.Tsajamoni Amma v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax). 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, after reiterating the contentions raised in the counter affidavit, submitted that the Company, in which, the petitioner is the Managing Director is a Shell Company and therefore, they are evading the notices issued by the Assessing Officer. Thus, she submitted that in such scenario, the Assessing Officer has no other go except to issue the impugned proceedings against the petitioner in order to protect the interest of the revenue. She further contended that the Gujarat High Court, in a case reported in (2012)28 taxman.com 111 (Pravinbhai M.Kheni v. Assistant Commissioner ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Officer for examination by not setting aside the assessment order, this Court is not convinced on such contention. 9. A bare perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal would clearly indicate that it has set aside the assessment order itself and remitted the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the impugned demand is valid even in the absence of any fresh assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer in pursuant to such remand. Therefore, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in the absence of any fresh order of assessment, the impugned demand cannot be sustained. Therefore, on this ground also, this Court is inclined to interfere with the....