TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (3) TMI 717
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Authority ) whereby the appeal preferred by assessee from the assessment order dated 28.12.2017 passed by Assessing Officer, ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi u/s 143(3)/ 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "The Act") was dismissed and further enhancement of Rs. 1,40,000/- was made. 2. The brief facts are that the assessee had filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,10,160/-. The DIT (Investigation) intimated that Sh. Surender Kumar Jain had been providing accommodation entries through a large number of dummy companies floated by him or his associates. The name of the assessee company i.e. M/s. Home Coziness Resorts & Holidays Pvt. Ltd. also figured in the list of beneficiaries of Share Capital, Premium ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ooks. Accordingly, notice was given. The Appellant had pleaded that if at all, an addition has to be made, the same should be restricted to 0.25%. Accordingly, income of the appellant was enhanced by Rs. 1,40,000/-, being 2% of Rs. 70,00,000/-. 4. Now before the Tribunal, assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the reassessment initiated on a non-existing entity and therefore reassessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....isclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, as the same has been reopened after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. 7. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under Section 148 is barred by limitation as the same has been issued after a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. 8. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in sustaining the addition of an amount of Rs. 70,00,000/- made by AO on account of share capital under Section 68 of the Act. (ii) That the said addition has been c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e grounds ofappeal. 5. Arguments were heard and Ld. Counsel for the assessee restricted his arguments to ground no. 2 alone submitting that as the reassessment was initiated and assessment order passed against non-existing entity the proceedings are void ab initio. Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied catena of judgments in support of his arguments that the framing of assessment against non-existing entity goes to the root of the matter and is jurisdictional defect. 5.1 On the other hand, Ld. DR contended that the assessee had not raised this issue at relevant stage of assessment or even before Ld. CIT(A). it was also submitted that 6. Appreciating the arguments and on consideration of the matter on record it can be observed that th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed the assessment order on 28.12.2017. It also establishes that there is no force in the contention of the Ld DR, that assessee had not taken the plea at the appropriate stage. Thus, what can be concluded is that at the time of issuance of notice u/s 148 on 25.08.2014, the company petition for scheme of amalgamation was pending before Hon'ble Delhi High Court and after issuance of the notice on 25.08.2014 the assessee by letter dated 14.09.2014 had intimated of the amalgamation which was effective from 01.04.2013. 7.1 Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Enfotainment Ltd. vs. CIT 2011 (8) TMT 544 has held that the framing of assessment against non-existing entity / person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural....