9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (8) TMI 42X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... against VBPPL. A second aspect of the matter is that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147 were barred by limitation since limitation for framing the assessment under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act expired on 31st March, 2014. On this ground also, the question of revival of those proceedings by the impugned letter dated 14th March, 2016 was bad in law. Thus reopning order quashed - Decided in favour of assessee. - W. P. (C) 2712/2016 - - - Dated:- 26-7-2017 - S. Muralidhar And Prathiba M. Singh, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr. Salil Aggarwal, Ms. Madhu Aggarwal and Mr. Uma Shankar, Advocates For the Respondent : Mr. Ashok K. Manchanda, Senior Standing Counsel ORDER Dr. S. Muralidhar, J. 1. This writ petition by BDR Builders and Developers Private Limited ( BBDPL or Petitioner ) challenges a notice dated 3rd April, 2012 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( Act ). A challenge is also laid to a letter dated 14th March, 2016 whereby the proceedings initiated against the Petitioner under Section 148 of the Act by the notice dated 3rd April 2012 were sought to be revived. 2. The facts leading to the filing of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment and by claiming wrong deductions, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 6. The Petitioner filed its objections to the re-opening on 26th December, 2013. 7. A search and seizure operation was undertaken by the Department under Section 132 (1) of the Act in respect of VBPPL. Significantly, the authorisation for the search was issued in the name of VBPPL. 8. The objections to the reopening of the assessment for the AY in consideration were rejected by the AO on 6th January, 2014. In view of the search action Section 132 (1) of the Act, the AO on his own, on 6th March, 2014 held the assessment proceedings under Section 147 of the Act to have abated. 9. More than a year later, on 22nd April, 2015, the AO issued a notice under Section 153A of the Act again in the name of VBPPL for AY 2008-09. 10. By a letter dated 5th May, 2015 an objection was raised to said notice inter alia pointing out that VBPPL had already amalgamated with the Petitioner herein, i.e. BDPPL, by the order dated 20th February, 2013 of the High Court with effect from 1st April, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... On 11th February, 2016, the Petitioner wrote to the AO pointing out that, since there was no pending income tax proceeding in the case of VBPPL, the said notice should stand withdrawn. 14. Notwithstanding the above, on 23rd February, 2016 the AO again issued a notice under Section 143(2) of the Act along with a questionnaire allegedly in connection with the assessment proceedings under Section 153A/143(3) of the Act concerning VBPPL for AY 2008-09. By a letter dated 29th February, 2016 the Petitioner protested against the said notice. On 3rd March, 2016 the notice dated 23rd February, 2016 and the questionnaire were withdrawn by the AO admitting to having inadvertently issued them. 15. On 14th March, 2016, the AO issued the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act on the ground that with the dropping of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act, which had abated due to the initiation of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, had revived. It was stated that the limitation for completing those proceedings stood extended up to 31st March, 2015. It was stated therein that, in view of the above facts, the Petitioner sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent became aware of that fact even later, will not make any difference to the legal position. 20. Para 16 of the order dated 20th February 2013 records that any notices to the transferor company (which included VBPPL) that may be issued thereafter would be responded to by the Petitioner. This is not be understood to mean that proceedings initiated against any of the transferor companies, including VBPPL, by the Department prior to that date would be continued against the Petitioner. What it meant was that notices issued thereafter to VBPPL after it ceased to exist would be responded to by the Petitioner. That condition has been complied with since in fact the Petitioner answered the notices issued to VBPPL after 1st April 2012. 21. The resultant position is that on 3rd April, 2012 when the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued to VBPPL, it was issued to an entity which was non-existent in the eye of law. In Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CIT 247 CTR 500 (Del) the assessment in the name of non-existing entity was held to be void. It was noticed in that case that despite the AO being informed that the Assessee stood amalgamated with M. Corp. Pvt. Ltd by the order of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
