MARK ELECTRONICS CORPORATION,DISSOLVED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 29(1), NEW DELHI

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that assessee is a sole proprietor concern. Originally the assessee company was formed as a partnership firm and the same was dissolved on 01/04/2008. Subsequently, the firm was functioning as a sole proprietor concern and it is declaring the result as such filing the return of income consistently over the years. In the current Assessment Year, the assessee has filed its return of income on 30/09/2016.

Subsequently, the Assessing Officer received information that erstwhile assessee i.e. partnership firm was importing goods with the IEC Code which was original registered in the name of erstwhile partnership firm. Accordingly, 148 notice was issued to the erstwhile company and asked to file the return of income.

Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi

Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed the appeal as well as filed additional evidences under Rule 46A, however, Ld. CIT(A) rejected the above additional evidences with the observation that the assessee has not filed the application for admission of additional evidences before him. Further, he rejected the submission that assessee has not received the notice due to the reasons that the same was served before old consultant. Hence, he dismissed the appeal in the name of the non existing concern.

On the other hand, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and submitted that there is no compliance before the Assessing Officer, therefore, Assessing Officer has not appreciated the relevant facts on record. Further, assessee filed the evidence without following proper due process.

Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observed that the Assessing Officer has received certain information that the erstwhile partnership firm has imported goods and has not filed any return of income. Based on the information, the Assessing Officer issued 148 notice to the erstwhile partnership firm. Since, there was no compliance, the assessment order was completed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. It is Mark Electronics Corporation vs. ITO brought to our notice that the assessee is a sole proprietor concern which imported the above said goods by wrongly using the IEC Code which was registered in the names of erstwhile partnership firm and Ld. AR prayed that the assessee failed to submit the new PAN to update the IEC Code. He submitted that all the imports are duly recorded in the assessee’s books and relevant transactions were duly declared in the financial statement and also assessee is regularly filing return of income. After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, we observed that the assessee has submitted the relevant information before the Ld. CIT(A) as additional evidences in order to appreciate the relevant facts on record, however, the Ld. CIT(A) has rejected the same on the reason that the assessee has not followed the due procedure.

At the same time, in the interest of Revenue, we are of the view that since the assessee has submitted additional evidences before

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.