Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2022 (2) TMI 1365

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... or] appointed by the Hon ble High Court. The fact is that the company having been wound up, and Official Liquidator appointed by the Hon ble High Court has discharged and relieved as OL, the assessee-company as such does not legally exist in the eyes of law. We draw support of the judgment of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [ 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT ] where it was held that during pendency of assessment proceedings, assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and was to be set aside. Thus the appeal filed by the Revenue is not maintainable as against the respondent-company which is dissol .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that once dissolution order has been passed under section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956, the OL shall stand discharged as Official Liquidator of the company. This letter along with copy of judgment of Hon ble High Court was circulated to the ld.DR for getting appropriate instructions from the Department. 5. This is 36th hearing of the above case before the Tribunal. In the previous hearing i.e. on 15.2.2022, the Bench has passed the following order: At the outset it was noticed that the assessee company has been liquidated by the judgment of Hon ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 18/07/2019. The copy of the Hon ble Gujarat High Court is placed on record. Thus the query was posted to the ld.DR about the maintainability of the .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... d 14.09.2015, ordered the said Company to be wound up and while so ordering, the Official Liquidator, attached to the Court, came to be appointed as the Liquidator with all the powers provided under the Act. Consequential upon such order of winding up, the Official Liquidator directed his officials at the office of Registrar of Companies ( the ROC for short) to inspect the record of the Company maintained by the office of the ROC to know the assets and properties, liabilities, address of the office, factory premises, secured creditors, names and addresses of the Directors and, the date of order of winding of up. **** **** ***** 5. The Official Liquidator also submits that in response to the letter dated 05.12.2018 of. the Offic .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e-tax Department has demanded outstanding amount of Rs.1,00,000/- vide letter dated 25.01.2019. However, it is not discernible from the letter of the department or from the appeal filed by the Department as to which assessment year this demand relates to and how the demand is arrived at by the department. The ground raised before us also does not indicate any clue about the quantum of demand qua the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- submitted to the Official Liquidator. The Revenue has filed the present appeal on 8.8.2014, however, the Department was not able to reconcile the demand of Rs.1,00,000/- as pertained to which asstt.year. 9. Even going by Rule 26 of ITAT Rules, in the case of a company being wound up, the appeals shall not get abated. I .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ue is not maintainable as against the respondentcompany which is dissolved by order of the High Court of Gujarat cited (supra). We therefore dismiss the same as in limine. 12. Similarly, cross objection filed by the assessee is also not maintainable for the reasons that if the assessee is appellant before the Tribunal, as per second proviso to Rule 26 of the ITAT Rules, the assessee is required to modify the name of the appeal in Form No.36, which was not done in the present case. Therefore, the CO filed by the assessee is equally not maintainable, and we dismiss the same in limine. 13. In the result, both appeal of the Revenue and CO of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the Court on 28th February, 2022 at Ahmedabad. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates