IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘B’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5054/Del/2024 [Assessment Year: 2012-13]

M/s Continental Exim Limited Income Tax Officer, (Through Ex Director: Sh. Kapil Ward 6(3), Goel), Vs New Delhi-110002 A-275, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 PAN-AAACC0710E Assessee Revenue Assessee by Shri Ved Jain, Adv., Ms. Uma Upadhyay, CA and Ms. Kirti Gupta, AR Revenue by Sh. Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 25.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement 25.02.2025

ORDER

PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM:

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)

National Faceless Appeal Centre ((NFAC) Delhi, having DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1068331616(1), dated 04/09/2024 in appeal NO. CIT(A), Delhi-2/10558/2019-20 for Assessment Year 2012-13, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’).

2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a private limited company and filed its return of income for Ay 2012-13 on 31.03.2014 declaring loss of Rs. 730/-. The AO based on the information that assessee has obtained accommodation entry of Rs. 25,00,000/- has issued notice u/s 148 on 31.03.2019. Thereafter various notices were issued to the assessee however, no compliance was made. Thus the AO finally issued notice to its director Shri Kapil Goel. In reply, the director of the assessee company stated that the company has already been stuck off from the Register of Companies by the Registrar of the Companies (ROC, in short), therefore, the present proceedings u/s 148 against such company be dropped. The AO dismissed the claim of assessee and by observing that during the year assessee has increased its Share capital by Rs. 42,05,200/- and share premium by Rs. 63,07,800/- and the immediate source of the same has remained unexplained, made the total addition of Rs. 1,05,13,000/-, u/s 68 of the Act being the amount of Share capital and share premium received during the year. In first appeal assessee contended that when the notice u/s 148 was issued, the assessee company was struck off by the ROC and when it is cessed to exits, the entire reassessment proceedings based on the notice issued on non-existent entity is void ab initio. However, ld. CIT(A), NFAC has not accepted the contention of the assessee and dismissed the appeal by confirming the additions made.

3. Against the said order of the NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

4. The assessee challenged the appellate order on the strength of following grounds of appeal:-

“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (hereinafter referred as "CIT(A)") is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is illegal and non-est since the same has been issued in the name of non-existent entity.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in rejecting the contention of the assessee that the reassessment order passed by the AO is illegal and liable to be quashed as the very initiation of the assessment proceedings vide notice under section 148 of the Act in the name of non-existent entity is itself illegal and void-ab-initio.

4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO despite the fact that the assessment order passed by the AO in the absence of valid service of notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the order passed by the AO despite the fact