9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (7) TMI 1485 - AT - Income TaxReassessment order passed in the name of non existing company - assessee company having been dissolved - HELD THAT - We note the fact that company has already been dissolved and is not in existence since 18th March, 2011. The copy of the registrar of companies certificate was also submitted before the learned Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15th December, 2015. Despite this, the notice u/s 27th March, 2015 culminated into the assessment order passed in case of a non existing company i.e. Silver Line Trading Pvt. Limited . The issue has already been decided in assessee s own case 2018 (2) TMI 1936 - ITAT MUMBAI by the ITAT which was followed by the learned CIT (A). This issue is also covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT . In view of this, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT (A) in quashing re assessment order passed in the name of non existing company. Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to a non-existing company. 2. Legal correctness in ignoring the decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case. Issue 1: Validity of Notice to Non-Existing Company The appeal was filed by the Income Tax Officer against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, where the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order was allowed. The Income Tax Officer challenged this decision on the grounds that the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act to a non-existing company was legally incorrect. The brief facts revealed that the assessee, a domestic company, had not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessment order was passed in the name of a non-existing company, 'Silver Line Trading Pvt. Ltd.' The assessee argued that the company was dissolved and non-existing, which was communicated to the Assessing Officer. The CIT (A) held that the order passed by the Assessing Officer was not sustainable under the law and quashed the assessment order. The Tribunal upheld this decision, noting that the company had been dissolved since 2011, and the assessment order in the name of a non-existing company was not valid. Issue 2: Ignoring Previous Legal Precedent The Income Tax Officer also raised the issue of the CIT (A) ignoring a decision of the Delhi High Court in a similar case, Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. The High Court decision was confirmed by the Supreme Court, stating that a defect in recording the name of a non-existent company in a notice under Section 148 was a procedural defect curable under Section 292B. However, the Tribunal found that the specific circumstances of this case, where the company had been dissolved and non-existing since 2011, distinguished it from the legal precedent cited. The Tribunal also referenced the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., supporting the quashing of the re-assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company. Consequently, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (A) to quash the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing company, emphasizing the legal principle that the notice to a non-existing entity was invalid. The Tribunal distinguished the legal precedent cited by the Income Tax Officer based on the specific circumstances of the case, where the company had been dissolved since 2011. The Tribunal's decision was also supported by the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar matter, reinforcing the dismissal of the appeal filed by the Income Tax Officer.
|
