2025 (1) TMI 820 - HC - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment against non non-existent company - Validity of notices issued under the unamended Section 148 post-01.04.2021 - Scope of new provision section 148A - notice was issued in the name of company which prior to the issuance of the notice stood amalgamated with the petitioner company - HELD THAT - In the present case, a notice dated 29.07.2022 was issued u/s 148 of the Act after following the procedure as set out in Section 148A of the Act and in terms of the decisions of in Union of India Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal 2022 (5) TMI 240 - SUPREME COURT The said notice is in the name of the petitioner and, therefore, cannot be faulted on account of the impugned notice having been issued in the name of a non-existent company. The reassessment proceedings in respect of AY 2014-15 are now being continued pursuant to the notice dated 29.07.2022 issued u/s 148 and not the impugned notice, which is to be construed as a notice u/s148A (b) of the Act. The contention that the proceedings are vitiated on account of the fact that the impugned notice was issued in the name of a non-existent company is unmerited. Petition dismissed.

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered in this judgment are:

Whether a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the name of a non-existent company is valid.
How the Supreme Court's ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal affects the validity of notices issued under the unamended Section 148 after 01.04.2021.
Whether subsequent proceedings based on a notice issued in the name of a non-existent company are vitiated.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Notice Issued in the Name of a Non-Existent Company

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The notice was issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, which pertains to the reassessment of income. The precedent set by the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal is crucial, as it addressed the validity of notices issued under the unamended Section 148 post-01.04.2021.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court noted that the impugned notice was issued to Nokia Siemens Networks India Private Limited, a non-existent entity due to its amalgamation with the petitioner company. However, the Supreme Court's decision allowed such notices to be treated as issued under Section 148A(b) of the Act.
Key evidence and findings: The amalgamation of the company was a key fact, leading to the conclusion that the notice was issued to a non-existent entity.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the Supreme Court's directive to treat the notice as one under Section 148A(b), thus rendering the initial error in the name inconsequential.
Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument that the notice was invalid due to being issued in the wrong name was countered by the Supreme Court's ruling, which provided a framework to rectify such procedural errors.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the notice, though initially flawed, was valid under the framework established by the Supreme Court's decision.

Issue 2: Impact of Supreme Court's Ruling in Union of India & Ors. v. Ashish Agarwal

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Supreme Court's ruling allowed notices issued under the unamended Section 148 post-01.04.2021 to be treated as notices under Section 148A(b).
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court interpreted the Supreme Court's directive as binding, requiring the impugned notice to be treated as a notice under the amended provisions.
Key evidence and findings: The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision to address the procedural defect in the issuance of the notice.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the Supreme Court's directive to the facts, thereby validating the notice and subsequent proceedings.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the petitioner's argument by emphasizing the Supreme Court's intention to avoid procedural dismissals due to technical errors.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the notice was valid under the amended provisions, as directed by the Supreme Court.

Issue 3: Validity of Subsequent Proceedings Based on the Notice

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The proceedings were initially based on a notice issued under Section 148, which was subsequently treated as a notice under Section 148A(b) following the Supreme Court's decision.
Court's interpretation and reasoning: The court reasoned that since the subsequent notice dated 29.07.2022 was correctly issued in the petitioner's name, the proceedings were valid.
Key evidence and findings: The issuance of the correct notice in the petitioner's name was pivotal in validating the proceedings.
Application of law to facts: The court applied the legal framework to validate the subsequent proceedings, which were based on a correctly issued notice.
Treatment of competing arguments: The court dismissed the argument that proceedings were vitiated due to the initial notice's defect, as the subsequent notice rectified the error.
Conclusions: The court concluded that the proceedings were valid and not vitiated by the initial notice's defect.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "The impugned Section 148 notices issued to the respective assessees which were issued under unamended Section 148 of the IT Act...shall be deemed to have been issued under Section 148-A of the IT Act as substituted by the Finance Act, 2021 and construed or treated to be show-cause notices in terms of Section 148-A(b)."
Core principles established: Notices issued under the unamended Section 148 post-01.04.2021 can be treated as notices under Section 148A(b), thus validating them despite procedural errors.
Final determinations on each issue: The court determined that the impugned notice, though initially flawed, was valid under the amended provisions and that subsequent proceedings were not vitiated.

← Previous Next →