TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 137
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....und that the said Assessment Order has been passed in the name of Krupa Polymers (India) Pvt Ltd by using the Permanent Account Number ("PAN") of a non-existing entity, namely the erstwhile partnership firm Krupa Polymers, which had already stood dissolved upon its conversion into the Petitioner company on 17th March 2010. The Petitioner is also aggrieved on the ground that the assessment has been completed without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B of the Act, including non-issuance of a draft assessment order and denial of an opportunity of being heard as Respondent No. 1 has directly passed the impugned order in the name of the Petitioner company using the PAN of the firm, especially when all other correspond....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 4. Thereafter, a Notice dated 30th March 2021, under Section 148 of the Act, was issued by Respondent No. 1 to Krupa Polymers, i.e. the erstwhile firm and a Notice dated 18th November 2021, under Section 142(1) of the Act, was also issued in the name of the firm requiring various details. The Petitioner filed another letter dated 15th December 2021 again pointing out that the firm had been converted into the Petitioner company on 17th March 2010, the firm did not exist, and therefore the Notice issued in the name of the non-existing entity was void ab initio and bad in law. 5. Subsequently, Respondent No. 1 issued a Show Cause Notice dated 25th March 2022 in the name of the firm stating that information had been received regarding impor....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gned order has been passed in breach of Section 144B of the Act as no draft assessment order was issued to the Petitioner before passing the final assessment order. The impugned order passed directly by Respondent No. 1 is contrary to the faceless assessment scheme and contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed by Section 144B. Further, it was submitted that the entire basis of the impugned order is misconceived because the import transactions in question were duly accounted for in the books of the Petitioner company and the same could not be treated as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. 8. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel for the Respondents, supported the order of Respondent No. 1. He submitted that the Bill of Entry is....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any other provisions of this Act, the assessment under sub-section (3) of Section 143 or under Section 144, in the cases referred to in sub-section (2), shall be made in a faceless manner as per the following procedure, namely:- (i).... (ii).... .... (xiv) the assessment unit shall, after taking into account all the relevant material available on the record make in writing, a draft assessment order or, in a case where intimation referred to in clause (xiii) is received from the National Faceless Assessment Centre, make in writing, a draft assessment order to the best of its judgment, either accepting the income or sum payable by, or sum refundable to, the assessee as per his return or making variation to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....twhile partnership firm and without issuing a draft assessment order, the impugned order has been passed in the case of the Petitioner using the PAN of the firm. No prior correspondence or Show Cause Notice has been issued to the Petitioner company. The reopening proceedings suffer from jurisdictional infirmity with respect to two issues. Firstly, no Notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued to the Petitioner company and hence the assessment cannot be made in the hands of the Petitioner company without issuing a Notice under Section 148. Secondly, the procedure laid down in Section 144B(1)(xvi) of the Act has not been complied with as no draft assessment order has been passed and directly a final Assessment Order has been passed i....