2021 (8) TMI 1407 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment against non existent company - notice issued to company amalgamated - HELD THAT - As decided in TAKSHASHILA REALTIES PVT LTD VERSUS DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 4 (1) (2) 2016 (12) TMI 872 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT as per the scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Court, the transferor Company shall not be in existence, and therefore, the impugned notices against the transferor Company (non-existent Company) shall not be permissible. Writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice is quashed solely on the ground that the impugned notice was issued in the name of non- existing company in spite of revenue having notice and knowledge of non-existence of such Company. Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Challenge to impugned notice dated 29th March, 2019 under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 2012-13 issued in the name of a company already amalgamated in 2012.

Detailed Analysis:
The petitioner challenged the impugned notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2012-13, contending that it was issued in the name of a company that had already been amalgamated in 2012. The petitioner argued that the department had been informed about the amalgamation, making the notice invalid in the eyes of the law. The petitioner relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in a similar case, emphasizing that once a company is amalgamated, any notice issued against the non-existent company is unsustainable. The court noted that the impugned notice was issued despite the revenue having knowledge of the non-existence of the company, leading to the conclusion that the notice and subsequent steps were not legally tenable.

The court considered the submissions of both parties and found that the impugned notice dated 29th March, 2019 was not legally valid as it was issued in the name of a non-existing company, despite the revenue being aware of this fact. The court held that all further steps taken pursuant to the impugned notice were also not legally tenable. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned notice solely on the ground of it being issued in the name of a non-existing company despite the revenue's knowledge of the company's non-existence. As no affidavits were submitted, the court deemed the allegations made in the writ petition to have been denied by the respondents, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.