9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (3) TMI 1532 - HC - Income TaxValidity of reopening of assessment - notice issued to company amalgamated - HELD THAT - As the noticee has already been amalgamated on 16th September 2019 with retrospective effect from 1st April 2018 and the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of a non-existing company is not tenable in the eye of law since information of such amalgamation has already given to the respondent. The impugned notices is not tenable in the eye of law and all further steps pursuant to the said impugned notices also are not tenable in the eye of law - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
Challenge to notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2015-2016 in the name of a transferee company post-amalgamation. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated 28th April, 2021, regarding the assessment year 2015-2016 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, issued in the name of a transferee company that had already been amalgamated on 16th September, 2019, with retrospective effect from 1st April, 2018. The petitioner argued that the department had been informed about this amalgamation on 9th December, 2019, making the notice in the name of a non-existing company legally untenable. The petitioner's counsel relied on a decision of the Gujarat High Court and a previous order of the same court to support their contention. The Court, after hearing the arguments of both parties, held that the impugned notices dated 28th April, 2021, were not legally valid as they were issued in the name of a non-existing company post-amalgamation. Consequently, all further steps pursuant to the impugned notices were also deemed legally invalid and were quashed. The writ petition was allowed, and the impugned notices were quashed solely on the ground of being issued in the name of a non-existing entity. However, the judgment clarified that the quashing of the notice did not prevent the respondents from issuing a fresh notice in compliance with the law. As no affidavits were called for, the Court deemed the allegations made in the writ petition to have been denied by the respondents. Consequently, the writ petition was disposed of, and the impugned notices were quashed, allowing the possibility for the respondents to issue a fresh notice in accordance with the law.
|
