9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (9) TMI 1226 - HC - Income TaxRevisional order passed on a non existent company - Company amalgamated with other company - HELD THAT - Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. 2011 (8) TMI 544 - DELHI HIGH COURT wherein it is held that assessment in the name of the company which has been amalgamated with another company and stands dissolved is null and void; assessment 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 provisions of s.292B. In the present case also the amalgamation took place vide the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court dated 17.04.2008 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and this Company Aarcee Holdings Pvt. Ltd. has amalgamated with Padmavati Properties Trust Ltd. and no revision order can be passed on a non-existent company. Hence, the very premise of the revenue that revision order passed on a non existent company does not stand. Also see IK. AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, KOL-III 2011 (3) TMI 690 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT Since, we find that the issue is a question of fact and/or a technical question, and not a substantial question of law, the application and the appeal are dismissed.
Issues:
Appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding the justification of allowing the appeal of the assessee based on the non-existence of a company for revision proceedings. Analysis: The appeal under section 260A of the Income Tax Act was filed against the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'C' Bench, Kolkata, for the assessment year 2006-2007. The main question raised was whether the Tribunal was justified in allowing the appeal of the assessee by relying on a decision of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in a specific case involving a non-existent company for revision proceedings under section 263 of the Act. The Tribunal's decision was based on the fact that the company in question, Aarcee Holdings Pvt. Ltd., did not exist at the time of the show cause notice initiating revision proceedings. The counsel for the assessee presented a decision from the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, emphasizing that assessment in the name of a company that no longer exists is null and void, constituting a jurisdictional defect. The counsel also referred to the amalgamation of Aarcee Holdings Pvt. Ltd. with another company as per the order of the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court, further supporting the argument that no revision order can be passed on a non-existent company. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by these legal precedents and factual considerations. The High Court, comprising Hon'ble Justice Soumitra Pal and Hon'ble Justice Debangsu Basak, considered the matter and observed that the issue at hand was a question of fact and/or a technical question, rather than a substantial question of law. Consequently, the application and the appeal were dismissed based on this assessment. The Court's decision was grounded in the understanding that the issue did not involve a substantial legal question warranting further consideration beyond the factual and technical aspects already examined by the Tribunal. The dismissal of the appeal was based on the Court's determination that the matter did not raise significant legal complexities or principles necessitating a different outcome from the Tribunal's decision.
|
