9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 2064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rief are that Assessee Company was incorporated on 23.9.2006 and during the year it has received share application money from, M/s. Shalini Holding Ltd. for Rs. 5 lacs. The return of income was filed at nil income on 23.9.2009 which was duly processed u/s 143(1). Later on the basis of information received for DIT Investigation, New Delhi that assessee has taken a sum of Rs. 5 lacs in share application money from Shalilni Holding Ltd. which belongs to Shri S.K.Jain group co- entry provider, accordingly, notice u/s 148 was issued on 11.9. 2014 addressed in the following manner :- 2. Before us the Ld. Counsel for the assessee had stated that, firstly assessee has filed all the confirmation letter, bank statement, acknowledgment of ITR, balanc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... & Co. v. V.S. Gupta, Income Tax Officer SUPREME COURT OF INDIA [1966}59 ITR 794 (SC) Held That: Dissolution is a stage subsequent to the winding up or liquidation, the end of the existence of the company. Till dissolution, the corporate existence continues. It follows, per contra, that once a company is dissolved, its corporate existence comes to an end and is no longer in existence 2. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Express Newspaper Ltd. SUPREME COURT OF INDIA[1964]53 ITR 250 (SC) Held That: A company can be assessed so long as it exists. No assessment can be made on a company after its name is struck off register of companies. 3. Commissioner of Income Tax-III v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd HIGH COURT OF DELHI [2014]52 Taxmann.com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er of Income-tax v. Micron Steels (P.) Ltd.HIGH COURT OF DELHI [2015} 59 taxmann.com 470 (Delhi) Held that Where subsequent to search Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153C to assessee-company as by that time assessee was already amalgamated into another company as completion of assessment in respect of a non-existent company was a nullity and also same could not be cured under section 292B. 6. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v DCIT Circle-16 (1), New Delhi IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH'1-1' [2016} 72 taxmann.com 164 (Delhi - Trib.)) Held that Where a company had already amalgamated with assessee, assessment framed by Assessing Officer on said company which was not in existence on date of passing assessment order, was not valid. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... subsequent proceedings on such non existing company have no legal basis. On the perusal of material placed on record which is even borne out from the appellate order, specifically from pages 12 to 20, it is seen that Registrar of Company had issued a notice u/s 560(3) of the Companies Act on 27.6.2013, which was forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax that the Company, 'M/s. Galaxy Technosys Private Limited' will be struck off from the register and such company will be dissolved. Another notice/undertaking was sent vide intimation dated 9.11.2013 by Registrar of Company to the Income Tax Department, specifically intimating that 'Galaxy Technosys Private Ltd.' has been struck off from the register and the said comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment framed in the name of a non existing entity is a jurisdictional defect and not merely a procedural irregularity of the nature which can be cured by invoking the provision of section 292B. Similarly this principle was reiterated in the subsequent judgment by the Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd. (2015) 370 ITR 288, wherein the Hon'ble High Court held that order of assessment on a company which cease to exist is not a procedural irregularity which can be cured by section 292B. In another judgment in the case of PCIT vs. BMA Capfin Ltd. (2018) 100 taxman.com 329 Delhi, the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court, following the aforesaid judgments have quashed the assessment. This later judgment has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of Assessment Order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
