TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (2) TMI 1936
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 2) On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in passing the revision order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, without serving show cause notice and without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3) On the fact and circumstances of the case as well as in Law, the Learned Principal CIT has erred in passing Revision Order u/s.263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act, without considering the fact that the assessee company was dissolved on 18.03.2011....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....017. 7. Though assessee has taken 3 grounds on the issue of order passed u/s.263, but effectively it is only one ground which is on the validity of order passed U/s 263 of the Act. 8. It was argued by learned AR that the company was dissolved by the ROC on 18/03/2011, copy of certificate issued by ROC is placed on page 2 of paper book. Since the company was not in existence on the date of order passed U/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act, hence the said order itself is null and void as there cannot be any assessment on non-existing entity. Therefore an order, which was a nullity in the eyes of law had no existence in the eyes of law and, therefore, the same could not have been revised by the Ld. PCIT u/s.263, thereby giving fresh life to th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of which submitted during the course of hearing, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that there cannot be any reassessment proceeding on non -existing company. 10. Similar view was taken by the A'bad ITAT in case of Milestone Tradelink Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO ( ITA NO. 1578/Ahd/2015) vide order dated 04/03/2016, wherein Bench held as under: "11. On due consideration of all these arguments, we are of the view that in the Income Tax Act, there is no provision to communicate this fact to the Commissioner. The assessee has already informed the AO. We have extracted the copy of the letter written by the assessee. We have also made reference of the assessment order vide which the AO has taken cognizance of this fact while he issued notice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Milestone Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the order passed by the Id. Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.] 11. Reliance was also placed by learned AR on the following judicial pronouncements. Case Title / No. Held CIT Vs. Dimension Apparel Pvt. Ltd (89 CCH0344) (High Court of Delhi) Assessment made on non-existing company is not maintainable. [Para 16] In reply to the argument of revenue that the AO has also mentioned name of amalgamated Company in the order and therefore merely mentioning name of amalgamating company is only a procedural defect curable U/s 292B of the Act, the Court while relying on various other decisions, held that Section 292B can cure technical defe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee company was existing. It is not possible to ask any question to a dead person even in respect of the matter which occurred, when that person was alive. This reasoning is equally applicable to the present case, as well. In such circumstances, the notice should have issued to the amalgamated company, M/s. Precot Industries Ltd. Under these circumstances, we have no reason to deviate from the order of the Commissioner of Income tax( Appeals), who has followed the court order on the subject Rainbow Oxygen P Ltd (ITA No. 48/Del/2015 (ITAT New Delhi) The AO passed order on non-existing company therefore considering various decisions such assessment is not sustainable. Pampasar Distillery Ltd Vs ACIT 15 SOT 331 (ITAT Kolkata) The qu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ehemently argued that action of Ld PCIT invoking provisions of section 263 of the Act against a non-existing entity is contrary to the provisions of law and accordingly without jurisdiction. 14. On the other hand, learned DR defended the order of CIT and contended that since no enquiry was made by the AO with respect to the transaction of bank deposit, power was correctly invoked by CIT u/s.263. 15. We have considered rival contentions and carefully gone through the orders of CIT passed u/s.263. We have also deliberated on the judicial pronouncements cited by learned AR during the course of proceedings before us. We had also verified the letter of the Registrar of Companies dated 18/03/2011 dissolving the assessee-company. Thus, undisputed....