Held that by not providing reasons recorded, assessee had been deprived of fundamental right to know and object on basis of which jurisdiction had been acquired or assumed by Assessing Officer and was completely in dark about reasons of reopening against which he could not even file any objections. Reassessment order passed by Assessing Officer was to be quashed as bad in law. Held that where Assessing Officer had information in his possession, in form of tangible material from Directorate of Investigation (DDIT) during third-party search that income of assessee had escaped assessment, but no material related to assessee was found, correct provision required to be invoked for reopening of assessment was section 147 and not section 153C. therefore, there was no infirmity in assumption of jurisdiction assumed by Assessing Officer in reopening of assessment under section 147. Held that Assessing Officer was aware about non-existence of a particular entity and had even acted upon it in subsequent year accordingly, assessment order in name of non-existent entity, was a fundamental error on part of revenue, which could not have been cured or rectified. Assessee-company converted into a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) and hence was considered dissolved and removed from Registrar of Companies (ROC) records from date of registration as an LLP. Thereafter, notice under section 148 was issued in name of LLP, and revenue argued that even though company ceased to exist, notice was appropriately issued to successor LLP. Section 170 gives power to Assessing Officer to assess income of predecessor in hands of successor. However, in cases where predecessor ‘cannot be found’, income of predecessor can be assessed in hands of successor for year of succession and immediately preceding year, therefore, successor LLP could only be assessed for income of predecessor company for assessment year 2015-16 (up to date of succession 23-3-2016) and year preceding that (assessment year 2014-15). Assessing Officer lacked jurisdiction in reopening and assessing case of predecessor company for assessment year 2009-10 in hands of assessee LLP and thus, reassessment order for assessment year 2009-10 was to be quashed. (AY. 2008-09 , 2009-10)
DCIT v. Bhawna Computers (P.) Ltd. (2023) 203 ITD 330 /108 ITR 351/ (2024) 228 TTJ 450 (Mum) (Trib.)
S. 147 : Reassessment-Share application-Accommodation-No proof of service of reasons recorded being supplied to assessee, reassessment-Reassessment is quashed-Information in his possession, in form of tangible material from Directorate of Investigation (DDIT) during third-party search that income of assessee had escaped assessment-Non-existence of a particular entity-Succession to business otherwise than on death-[S. 68, 148, 153C, 170, 292B]