Full Text
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2462 OF 2022
CLSA India Private Limited } having its offce at 8FF }
Dalamal HouseF Nariman PointF }
Mumbai 400021 } …Petitioner
JUDGMENT
1) The Deputy Commissioner of } Income-taxF 4(1)(1)F Mumbai } having his address at Room No. } 640F Aayakar BhavanF M. K. Road} Mumbai – 400 020 }
2) The Additional Commissioner } of Income-taxF 4(1)F Mumbai } having his address at Room No. } 641 Aayakar BhavanF M. K. Road } Mumbai – 400 020 }
3) The Additional8Joint8Deputy[8] } Assistant Commissioner of Inco- } me Tax8Income-tax OffcerF } National Faceless Assessment } CentreF Delhi }
4) Union of India } Through the SecretaryF } Department of RevenueF Ministry } of FinanceF North BlockF New } Delhi 100 001 } …Respondents **** Mr. Paras Savla a8w Mr. Harsh R. ShahF Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. Suresh KumarF Advocate for the Respondents. **** R.V. Patil 1 of 6 CORAM: DHIRAJ SINGH THAKUR AND KAMAL KHATAF JJ.
RESERVED ON: 23rd JANUARYF 2023.
PRONOUNCED ON: 10th FEBRUARYF 2023.
JUDGMENT
PER DHIRAJ SINGH THAKURF J.:. The Petitioner challenges the notice dated 31st MarchF 2021 issued under Section 14 of the Income Tax ActF 1961 (“the Act”) as also the order of assessment passed under Section 147 r8w Sections 144 and 144B of the Act dated 31st MarchF 2022F for the assessment year 2017-1 F on the ground that the notice under Section 14 of Act was issued in the name of a non-existent company.
2. Briefly stated the material facts are as under: A notice dated 31st MarchF 2021 under Section 14 of the Act for the assessment year 2017-1 was issued in the name of Laysin BPO Pvt. Ltd. proposing to reopen the assessment on the ground that income had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. In response to the said noticeF the Petitioner herein CLSA India Private Limited informed the Respondents about the non- R.V. Patil 2 of 6 existence of the assessee Laysin BPO Pvt. Ltd. on account of its amalgamation with the Petitioner CLSA India Private Limited. The Respondents stood informed that the merger had taken place with effect from 01st AprilF 2015 vide order of this Court dated 16th AprilF 2016 andF thereforeF sought the dropping of the proceedings initiated against the said non-existent entity.
3. It is stated that the factum of the amalgamation was already within the knowledge of the revenue as is reflected from the order of assessment dated 16th DecemberF 2017 for the assessment year 2015-16 which show M8s CLSA India Pvt. Ltd. as the successor of M8s Laysin BPO Pvt. Ltd.. It is further stated that even for the assessment year 2016-17F return was fled by the Petitioner in which the factum of the amalgamation of Laysin BPO Pvt. Ltd. was reflected. For the assessment year 2017-1 F the Petitioner states that it fled a response to e-verifcationF informing the Respondents yet again regarding the non-existence of the entity on account of its merger with the Petitioner herein.
4. Be that as it mayF it is thus clear that the notice under Section 14 of the Act which forms the basis for reassessment proceedings was issued in the name of a non-existent entity and despite the fact R.V. Patil 3 of 6 that the Respondents had the knowledge regarding the nonexistence of the said entity and despite having been informedF the order of assessment was passed in the name of the Petitioner while at the same timeF mentioning the name of the assessee as Laysin BPO Pvt. Ltd.
5. This is clearly untenable in view of the Apex Court judgment in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v8s. CIT[1] F wherein the following principles were formulated:
1. 186 ITR 278 (SC). R.V. Patil 4 of 6 In the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. V8s. CST[2] a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court held that once the factum of amalgamation of a company had been brought to the notice of the A.O.F despite which the proceedings are continued and an order of assessment passed in the name of non-existence companyF the order of assessment would not be merely be a procedural defect but would render it void.
6. RecentlyF the Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income TaxF New Delhi V8s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.[3] reiterated the aforementioned principles and held as under: