9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1039X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (s) No. 1,2 : Mr Karan Sangani, Mrs Kalpanak Raval (1046) ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI) 1. Since, the issue involved in this matter involves the short question of law, learned Advocates for the parties jointly requested that this matter be taken-up for final hearing, at the admission stage. 2. By way of this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought the following reliefs; 7. A. quash and e set aside the impugned notice dated 27.03.2021 issued by the Respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2016-17 at Annexure A ; B. Pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of this petition, to stay implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure A to this petition and stay further procedure for assessment and recovery for A.Y. 2016- 17; C. any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; D. to provide for the costs of this petition; 3. Heard, learned Advocate, Mr. Soparkar, appearing for the petitioner and learned Advocate, Mr. Sangani, appearing with learned A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arely covered by the same. 6. On the other hand, learned Advocate, Mr. Sangani, appearing with learned Advocate, Ms. Raval, for the Respondent, though, opposed this petition, he is not in a position to dispute the fact that the issue involved in this matter is covered by the aforesaid two decisions. 7. Having heard the learned Advocates for the parties and having perused the material on record, it emerges that one Panchdhara Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd. came to be merged with Shantigram Estate Management Pvt. Ltd., i.e. the petitioner-Company, with effect from 01.04.2015 and the same was approved by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2016. 7.1 From the record, it also emerges that pursuant to the above, the petitioner had also intimated the concerned assessing officer of the respondent about the same vide communication dated 31.03.2016. A copy of the same is produced at Page-13 to the compilation. In spite of the same, a notice, under Section 148 of the Act, came to be issued to the erstwhile Panchdhara Agro Farms Pvt. Ltd.. 7.2 In above view of the matter, it would be relevant to refer to the observations made by this Court in ADANI WILMAR LTD. (Supra), wherein, after ref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 148 to one of the three transferee companies for reopening the assessment. The Court considered whether the transferor company had ceased to exist as a result of the approved Scheme of Amalgamation. Answering that in the affirmation has held that in such case, the notice issued under Section-148 in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. 8. Concededly, in the present case the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued to Gayatri Integrated Services Private Limited which, as aforesaid, had long back got amalgamated with the petitioner vide order dated 18th June, 2015 passed by this court and thus, it had ceased to have its own existence so as to render it amenable for the reassessment proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Moreover, the respondent and the department were duly informed by the petitioner about the amalgamation and despite the said factum having been brought to the notice of the respondent, statutory notice under section 148 came to be issued to Gayatri Integrated Services Private Limited for reopening the assessment on the ground that the respondent has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... orm mentioned not applicable in amalgamation section. It had contended that the intimation was sent to the revenue on 22.07.2010. The same was for the A.Y.2007-08 and not for the A.Y.2006- 07. The separate proceedings under Section 153A were initiated against MIPL for A.Y.2007-8 to 2008-09 and the proceedings against MRPL for those two assessment years were quashed by the Commissioner as the amalgamation was disclosed. Since the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations have taken place and statements were recorded by the revenue of the Directors and Managing Director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which also suppressed the factum of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was filed by MRPL the company which has ceased to be in existence, and yet, the appeals were filed on behalf of it before the Commissioner and a cross appeal was filed before the Tribunal. An affidavit before the court was also on behalf of the Director of MRPL and the assessment order had attributed the specific amounts surrendered by MRPL and that too, after considering the special auditor s report, bringing specific amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011- 2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Entertainment. 40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable. 32. The court, undoubtedly noticed Saraswati Syndicate Further, the judgment in Spice (supra) and other line of decisions, culminating in this court s order, approving those judgments, was also noticed. Yet, the legislative change, by way of introduction of Section 2(1A), defining a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n response to the notice under Section- 142 of the Income Tax Act should be construed as a sufficient compliance and hence, all the petitions deserve to be allowed, quashing and setting aside the show-cause notices with consequential reliefs. This of-course in no manner preclude the respondent to initiate the action against the present petitioner in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. 6. The Court has already decided issue involved in this petition, in similar facts in Special Civil Application No.935 of 2022 and allied matters. Thus, the petition here also is allowed. The actions of the respondent authority regarding issuance of notice under Section-148 deserves to be interfered with. The show-cause notices issued by the respondents are quashed and set aside with consequential reliefs. This could not in any manner preclude the respondents to initiate the action against the present petitioners in accordance with law. 7.3 Keeping in view the observations made in the decisions of the Hon ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, this petition deserves to be allowed. 8. In the result, this petition is ALLOWED and the impugned notice, D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
