9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 643X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dissolved it ceases to exist in the eyes of law. Though the case of Saraswati (supra) was involving a scheme of amalgamation that would not change the legal position that once a company is dissolved it ceases to exist in the eyes of law. Thereafter, it cannot be treated as a person against whom assessment proceeding can be initiated under the Act. The notice issued u/s 148 cannot be a valid notice and consequently, the assessment order passed, which is also impugned in this petition pursuant to the liberty granted by the Court to amend the petition, also has to be quashed. - K. R. SHRIRAM KAMAL KHATA, JJ. For the Petitioners : Mr. Vikram Nankani, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atul K. Jasani. For the Respondents : Mr. Sures ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stems Pvt. Ltd. (since dissolved) for Assessment Year 2008- 09. 4. Normally we would not have entertained a petition as an alternative remedy to file an appeal is available to the petitioners. However, prima facie, the impugned notice has been issued in respect of a non existing entity as M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., which stands dissolved, having been struck off the Rolls of the Registrar of Companies much before its issue. Consequently, the assessment has been framed also in respect of the non-existing entity. This defect in issuing a reopening notice to a non-existing company and framing an assessment consequent thereto is a issue which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess the non-exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Companies Act was issued on 21st August 2012 stating that unless cause is shown to the contrary, the name of the company will be struck off from the register. It is stated that a notice under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act was also issued on 11th July 2013 and the notice was published in the official gazette of Government of India for the period 8th February to 14th February 2014. 3. In view of this affidavit, Mr. Nankani submitted that the Income Tax Department should have objected to the name of the company being struck off and not having done could not have issued the impugn notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Relying on judgment of the Apex Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suziki Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
