Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + AT Income Tax - 2021 (7) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2021 (7) TMI 659 - AT - Income TaxValidity reopening of assessment u/s 147 - Notice which was served on the company but issued in the name of the non-existent firm - mistake of issuance of notice in the name of non-existent person - curable defect u/s. 292B - HELD THAT:- The undisputed facts of the present case are that, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act dated 30/03/2017 had been issued in the name of the erstwhile Firm which was not in existence as on that date. It is also noted that, the AO was aware about this fact in as much as in the earlier notice dated 21/03/2014 issued u/s. 148 of the Act for this same year, the AO had recognized M/s. Emta Coal Ltd. as the successor of the Firm. We note that the argument put forth by the ld. CIT, DR in support of the order of the lower authorities, is identical to the argument taken by the Revenue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited [2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] wherein answering the question against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee, held that irrespective of the fact that the final order contained the names of the non-existent entity and the successor assessee, since the notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued in the name of a non-existent entity, it rendered the entire proceedings and consequent order to be nullity in the eyes of law Identical legal issue came up for consideration before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila vs. ACIT. [2020 (7) TMI 441 - DELHI HIGH COURT] wherein the question before the High Court was, whether the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of a non-existent person was bad in law or was it a curable defect u/s. 292B of the Act. Thus we note that there is no whisper much less any allegation by the AO that the assessee has failed to disclose material facts necessary for assessment in the return of income, and therefore the reopening of assessment is held to be bad in law - Decided in favour of assessee.
|