2025 (2) TMI 708 - HC - Income Tax

Reassessment proceedings in the name of a non-existing entity - Notice in the name of company as already amalgamated - HELD THAT - Although we have granted the Rule in this petition we are not inclined to stay the assessment proceedings. This is because though the Section 148A (b) notice dated 11 March 2023 was issued in the name of DDB Marketing Services Private Limited the final order u/s 148A (d) dated 10 April 2023 was issued in the name of the petitioner into which the earlier company had amalgamated. The impact of citing the wrong PAN number can always be considered at the final hearing stage. The affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents explains why this was required. In the petition we also did not find any serious averments regarding prejudice on account of the issue of preliminary notices under the name of DDB Marketing Services Private Limited. Petitioner did rely upon the decision of the co-ordinate bench in UBER India Systems (P.) Ltd. 2024 (10) TMI 1001 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT However we find that in the said case both the notices u/s 148A (b) and the order under Section 148A (d) were issued in the name of the non-existent amalgamating company. To that extent we will have to decide whether the decision in UBER India Systems (P) Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable. While we decline interim relief we clarify that the reassessment proceedings will abide by the final orders in this petition.

Summary

The Bombay High Court heard a case regarding a petition challenging a notice issued under Section 148A (b) of the IT Act for the assessment year 2019-20. The petitioner argued that the notice was issued in the name of a non-existing entity, despite the company having amalgamated into another entity. The court noted that although the initial notice was incorrect, the final order was issued in the name of the correct entity. The court declined to stay the assessment proceedings but allowed for consideration of the incorrect PAN number at a later stage. The court also mentioned a previous case involving a similar issue and indicated a need to distinguish it. The court denied interim relief but clarified that reassessment proceedings would be subject to the final orders in the petition and granted parties the liberty to apply. The court expedited the hearing of the petition.