TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Invalidation of Income Tax Order for Non-Existent Entity Raises Jurisdictional Concerns</h1> <h3>Tech Mahindra Ltd. Versus Pr. Commissioner of Income tax-2, Mumbai</h3> The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal by quashing the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, ... Revision u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- We are of the considered view that now when the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 25.05.2015 is in itself found to be non-est in the eyes of law, therefore, the Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai could not have revised the same in exercise of the powers vested with him u/s 263 of the Act. We are of the considered view that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263, dated 24.10.2017 cannot be sustained on two counts viz. (i) that, the order of revision u/s 263 has been passed by the Pr. CIT in the name of M/s Satyam Computers Services, i.e a company which was non-existent on the date of passing of the order; and (ii) that, the Pr. CIT in exercise of his power u/s 263 was divested on his jurisdiction of revising an assessment order which in itself was non-est in the eyes of law. We thus on the basis of our aforesaid observations quash the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec.263 of the Act, dated 24.10.2017, on the ground of invalid assumption of jurisdiction on his part. As we have quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai, under Sec.263 of the Act, for want of jurisdiction, therefore, we refrain from adverting to the merits of the issues therein involved, which thus are left open. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed Issues Involved:1. Validity of the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed in the name of a non-existent entity.2. Jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Pr. CIT) to revise an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity.3. Merits of the Pr. CIT's direction to disallow certain expenses claimed by the assessee.Detailed Analysis:1. Validity of the Order under Section 263 Passed in the Name of a Non-Existent Entity:The assessee argued that the order under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Pr. CIT was invalid as it was issued in the name of 'Satyam Computer Services Limited,' a company that had ceased to exist due to its amalgamation with Tech Mahindra Ltd. The Tribunal noted that the assessment order under Section 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3) was also framed in the name of the non-existent entity, despite the Assessing Officer (A.O) being aware of the amalgamation. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's ruling in Pr. CIT, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which held that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio.2. Jurisdiction of the Pr. CIT to Revise an Assessment Order Passed in the Name of a Non-Existent Entity:The Tribunal observed that since the assessment order itself was non-est (non-existent in the eyes of law), it could not be revised by the Pr. CIT under Section 263. The Tribunal supported this view by citing the ITAT, Mumbai Bench's decision in West Life Development Ltd. Vs. PCIT-5, Mumbai, which held that an assessment order that is non-est cannot be revised as it would imply granting fresh limitation for passing a new assessment order.3. Merits of the Pr. CIT's Direction to Disallow Certain Expenses Claimed by the Assessee:The Pr. CIT had directed the A.O to disallow the claim of expenses of Rs. 569 crores on account of class action settlement consideration, and to verify the claim of civil monetary penalty of Rs. 44.71 crores. However, since the Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT on jurisdictional grounds, it refrained from delving into the merits of these directions.Conclusion:The Tribunal quashed the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on two grounds: (i) the order was passed in the name of a non-existent entity, and (ii) the Pr. CIT lacked jurisdiction to revise an assessment order that was non-est. Consequently, the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed, and the Tribunal did not address the merits of the issues involved.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
