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

2025 (1) TMI 1238

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... tioner in WP/722/1999: Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Mr. P. C. Tripathi, Mr. Ashwin Dave, Mr. Ketan Dave, Mr. Amit Mathur and Mr. Gaurav Gangal i/b. A. S. Dayal & Associates. Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Mr. P. C. Tripathi, Mr. Ashwin Dave, Mr. Ketan Dave, Mr. Amit Mathur and Mr. Gaurav Gangal i/b. A. S. Dayal & Associates For the Appellant in ITXA/1313/2007, ITXA/1380/2007, ITXA/970/2007, ITXA/971/2007, ITXA/722/2007 and ITXA/723/2007 and for Respondent in ITXA/6033/2010 and ITXA/6099/2010. For the Appellant: Mr. Vipul Bajpayee in ITXA/6033/10 and ITXA/6099/10. For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kumar in ITXA/1313/2007 and ITXA/1380/2007. PC.:- 1 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... gation which is specifically fixed tomorrow." 3. Today, we have heard Mr. Mistri, the learned senior advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, the learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. Mr. Mistri submitted that the question that is proposed to be raised now goes to the root of the matter and challenges the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order in the name of a non-existing entity. Mr. Mistri pointed out that insofar as the assessment year 1993-1994 involved in Income Tax Appeal Nos.1381 of 2007 and 1313 of 2007 is concerned, there is material to show that the Assessing Officer was informed about or in any event, aware of the order dated 11 January 1995 by which the Reliance Polyprop .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... aid non-existing entity would be without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Vipul Bajpayee submitted that the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) was considerably watered down in PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 137 Taxmann.com 91 (SC). They pointed out that for the assessment year 1993-1994, there was nothing on record to show that the Assessing Officer was informed about the merger and consequent dissolution of the assessee-companies. They submitted that there was no prejudice because RIL represented the merged companies. They submitted that such an issue was never raised before the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) or ITAT. They submitted that this was not an issue that went .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... spute on facts. In that case, such a question can be framed even though the same may not have been raised in the earlier proceedings before the original or appellate authority. Consent, per se, cannot confer jurisdiction upon an authority where such jurisdiction is inherently lacking. 10. In Ashish Estates & Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 96 taxmann.com 305 (Bombay), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that a question which was not raised before Tribunal should not ordinarily be allowed to be raised in an appeal under Section 260A unless it was a question on the issue of jurisdiction or question, which went to the root of the jurisdiction. 11. In Santosh Hazari vs. Purshottam Tiwai (Dead) by L.Rs. AIR 2001 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... sed for the first time even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the said questions. 14. In Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay), the issue of prejudice on account of the allegation concerning breach of natural justice was sought to be raised for the first time before the High Court. Since the issue of prejudice involved an investigation into facts and further, since such an issue was never raised before the original authority or the first appellate authorities, this Court did not permit such an issue to be raised for the first time in the High Court. 15. In the present case, as was agreed by Mr. Suresh Kumar and submitted .....

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