Search Results For: Order on non-existing person


Westlife Development Ltd vs. Pr. CIT (ITAT Mumbai)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL: ,
DATE: June 10, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2011-12
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
S. 263: In challenging the validity of a s. 263 revision order, the validity of the underlying s. 143(3) assessment order which is sought to be revised can be examined even if the said assessment order has not been challenged and has become final. If the assessment order is passed on a non-existent entity, the revision order is void

There is no doubt that after passing of the original assessment order, the primary (i.e. original proceedings) had come to an end and attained finality and, therefore, outcome of the same cannot be disturbed, and therefore, the original assessment order framed to conclude the primary proceedings had also attained finality and it also cannot be disturbed at the instance of the assessee, except as permitted under the law and by following the due process of law. Under these circumstances, it can be said that effect of the original assessment order cannot be erased or modified subsequently. In other words, whatever tax liability had been determined in the original assessment order that had already become final and that cannot be sought to be disturbed by the assessee. But, the issue that arises here is that if the original assessment order is illegal in terms of its jurisdiction or if the same is null & void in the eyes of law on any jurisdictional grounds, then, whether it can give rise to initiation of further proceedings and whether such subsequent proceedings would be valid under the law as contained in Income Tax Act? It has been vehemently argued before us that the subsequent proceedings (i.e. collateral proceedings) derive strength only from the order passed in the original proceedings (i.e. primary proceedings). Thus, if order passed in the original proceedings is itself illegal, then that cannot give rise to valid revision proceedings

Milestone Tradelinks P.Ltd vs. ITO (ITAT Ahmedabad)

COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S):
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: A.Y 2006-07
FILE: Click here to view full post with file download link
CITATION:
An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.

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 under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench itself has observed that legally when a company amalgamates with another, it loses its identity and no proceedings can be taken in its earlier name. The Bench had taken a different view on account of notorious facts available in that case. No such circumstances are before us. Apart from above, we are of the view that even if the assessee gave consent for taking up the proceedings under section 263 against it, that would not infuse jurisdiction in the ld.Commissioner. In other words, this adjournment application, reply to show cause notice would not infuse jurisdiction to ld.Commissioner. Jurisdiction should be by virtue of operation of the Act and not by the consent of an assessee. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that before taking any action under section 263, the ld.Commissioner has to pursue record and record would include the communication made by the assessee to the AO on 23.7.2013 intimating about the fact of amalgamation

Top