S. S. DIAM PRIVATE LIMITED ,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -7(2), JAIPUR

ITA 1678/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 September 2026AY 2019-2011 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to take up grounds 2 and 3 first, as they go to the very root of the assumption of jurisdiction. The record establishes that both directors of the assessee company were disqualified under section 164(2)(a) of the Companies Act, 2013, for failure to file its financial statements. Consequently, the company's name was struck off the register by the Registrar of Companies. The Tribunal noted that the assessee had raised grounds 2 and 3, which were identical to those decided in its favour by a co-ordinate bench in its own case for assessment year 2017-18 (S.S. Diam Private Limited v. ITO, ITA No. 1131/JPR/2024, dated 10.09.2025). The co-ordinate bench had held that once a company is struck off and dissolved, no assessment proceedings can be initiated or continued against it. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the AO was without jurisdiction. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the assessee's contention that the assessment was bad in law due to lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not explicitly decide grounds 1, 4, and 5, as the issue of jurisdiction rendered them infructuous.

What were the facts?

The assessee, S. S. Diam Private Ltd., is appealing the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] dated 05.05.2025, which upheld the assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Income Tax Officer (AO) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for assessment year 2019-20. The assessee faced a delay of 113 days in filing the appeal, which was condoned. The AO initiated reassessment proceedings based on information regarding a bill of entry for imports and remittances reported in Form 15CC. The AO added Rs. 83,15,965/- to the assessee's income under section 69A as unexplained money, relating to an outward remittance for import purchases. The CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order, dismissing the assessee's grounds of appeal.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the AO erred in issuing notice u/s 148 on 31/03/2023, when after 29/03/2022, such notices could only be issued by the NFAC? (Question of law, concerning procedural jurisdiction). 2. Whether the AO erred in making the assessment in the hands of the company, which was struck off and dissolved by the Registrar of Companies (ROC) prior to the assessment order dated 21.02.2024? (Question of law, concerning jurisdiction). 3. Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without considering the facts submitted by the assessee, including that the company stood struck off? (Question of mixed law and fact, concerning procedural fairness). 4. Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 83,15,965/- under section 69A of the Act on account of alleged unexplained money? (Question of law, concerning the applicability of section 69A). Assessee's Contentions: - Grounds 1, 2, and 3 go to the root of jurisdiction. The company was struck off and dissolved before the assessment order, and this fact was on the AO's record. - An identical issue for AY 2017-18 was decided in the assessee's favour by a co-ordinate bench in S.S. Diam Private Limited v. ITO (ITA No. 1131/JPR/2024) dated 10.09.2025. - Section 69A is not applicable to a payment made for import purchases, which the AO himself accepted based on the bill of entry. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee complied with none of the notices issued during the proceedings. - The source of the remittance was never explained. - The company itself filed the return and prosecuted the appeals through its director.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 148A,Section 144B,Section 69A,Section 139,Section 142(1),Section 250,Section 164(2)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, JAIPUR

Before: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Prakash

PER : PRAKASH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-

1.

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Cen- tre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the learned CIT(A)”] dated 05.05.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (he- reinafter referred to as “the Act”), arising out of the assessment order dated 21.02.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as “the AO”) under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. There is a delay of 113 days in filing this appeal before us. The assessee has filed a condonation application suppo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →