2022 (3) TMI 1081 - SC - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order in the name of the amalgamating company - assessment framed in the name of the non-existent company - procedural defect - HELD THAT - High Court has followed the judgment of this Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT the revenue seeks to make a factual distinction between the position as it obtained in that case with the facts of the present case. Reading the order of the High Court, we do not find that any such submission has been urged before the High Court. Department would be advised to file a review petition before the High Court bringing the distinguishing features on the record of the High Court. We make no expression of opinion on that aspect. Granting liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with law including by way of a review before the High Court, the Special Leave Petition is disposed of.

Summary

Issues:
Interpretation of a previous judgment by the High Court and the need for a review petition.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court addressed the issue of the High Court following a previous judgment of the Supreme Court in a tax matter. The Additional Solicitor General argued that the revenue sought to make a factual distinction between the previous case and the present one, but it was not raised before the High Court. The Court noted that the High Court did not consider any such submission. The Court did not express any opinion on the Department filing a review petition before the High Court to bring out the distinguishing features on record.

The Court granted liberty to the petitioners to pursue appropriate proceedings in accordance with the law, including filing a review before the High Court. The Special Leave Petition was disposed of with this direction, allowing the petitioners to challenge the final judgment of the High Court before the Supreme Court if aggrieved. The Court kept all questions open to be agitated before it, including the grounds raised in the Special Leave Petition.

The Court also mentioned that pending applications, if any, stood disposed of. This comprehensive analysis highlights the Court's approach to addressing the interpretation of a previous judgment by the High Court and the suggestion for a review petition to clarify any distinguishing features in the present case.