9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o re-open the Assessment for A. Y. 2008-09; and (b) Assessment order dated 28th March, 2016 passed under Section 143(3) r/w Section 147 of the Act consequent to the impugned Notice dated 24th March, 2015. 3. On receipt of the reopening notice, the Chartered Accountant of the erstwhile M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., had originally accepted the same but immediately thereafter by letter dated 5th May, 2015 pointed out that the company M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd. is no longer in existence as it has been dissolved. Consequent thereto, the Assessing Officer has also issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Act to one of the petitioner who was the Director of erstwhile M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd. (since diss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n affidavit on record of one Mr. S. P. Kumar, Registrar of Companies ("ROC") affirmed on 7th June 2016 in which it is mentioned that the company M/s. Adler Security System Private Limited (since dissolved) had applied for striking off its name under Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956 because the company was inoperative from two years and there was no feasible opportunity available to carry on its business. The application was placed in the Ministry of Corporate Affairs portal giving 30 days time for raising objection, if any, by the stakeholders to the concerned Registrar. It is also stated that a list of such applications received between 16th June 2012 and 30th June 2012, was also forwarded to Securities Exchange Board of India, Reser ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issued, pursuant to which the Assessing Officer ("AO") assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in the name of non-existing entity, was invalid. The initiation of assessment proceeding against a non-existing entity was void ab initio. 4. We would agree with Mr. Nankani that as held in Maruti Suziki India (supra), where the Court has also considered Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v Commissioner of Income Tax 1990 (186) ITR 278 (SC)., once a company is dissolved it ceases to exist in the eyes of law. Though the case of Saraswati (supra) was involving a scheme of amalgamation that would not change the legal position that once a company is dissolved it ceases to exist in the eyes of law. Thereafter, it cannot be treated as a 'person' a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
