9911796707
Advanced Search 
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 827X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice has been issued to non existing entity and even the impugned order has been passed against the non existing entity. Mr. Gandhi submitted that the Assessing Officer has in fact even tried to justify his issuing notice against non existing entity. 3. The notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and the order disposing the objections have been issued to Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. This company merged with Alok Knit Exports Limited (Petitioner herein) pursuant to order dated 10th May, 2013 passed by this court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., as transferor company and Alok Knit Exports Limited as transferee company with appointed date of 1st April, 2012. By a letter dated 17th July, 2013 petitioner add ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout perusing the file (and we say this because otherwise he would not have issued the notice in the name of Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.) issued the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019 under Section 148 of the Act. Petitioner after receiving the reasons for re-opening filed its objections vide its letter dated 16th June, 2019 in which the first ground raised was that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is bad in law as the same was issued in the name of non-existent person. Petitioner gave the background as noted earlier in this order and also relied on certain judgments passed by the various High Court. Dismissing the objections by the impugned order dated 9th November, 2019 the Assessing Officer Mr. Eknath G. Abhang has justifie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... kness and he says although the notice under Section 148 of the Act mentions the name of earlier merged entity (Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd.), this error could be corrected under Section 292B of the Act. 6. The Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) has reiterated the settled position that the basis on which jurisdiction is invoked is under Section 148 of the Act and when such jurisdiction was invoked on the basis of something which was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation, the notice is bad in law. The Apex Court has held as under : In the present case, despite the fact that the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ell, the undisputed fact is that respondent has invoked jurisdiction of issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act to an entity that had ceased to exist. This is notwithstanding the fact that Respondent No.1 was aware that Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., had ceased to exist. For reasons mentioned above, we state that Respondent No.1 was aware that Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd. has ceased to exist. The stand now taken in the affidavit in reply is nothing but an after thought. We would have expected Respondent No.1 and Mr. Abhang to have atleast applied his mind and looked for documents which were already on file to see whether Nirvan Holdings Pvt. Ltd., existed before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents' records would have i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
