Court invalidates notice under Section 148, citing lack of jurisdiction. Petitioner granted relief.

The court concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existing entity post-amalgamation was illegal and lacked jurisdiction. The court quashed the notice, granting relief to the petitioner while allowing the respondent to take lawful actions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act.
2. Validity of notice issued to a non-existing company post-amalgamation.
3. Compliance with statutory requirements for intimation of amalgamation.
4. Applicability of legal precedents in similar cases.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of Notice under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act:
The petitioner challenged the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act dated 30.03.2021, arguing it was issued without jurisdiction and to a non-existing entity. The court examined the jurisdictional validity of the notice, considering the amalgamation of the companies involved and the subsequent legal implications.

2. Validity of Notice Issued to a Non-Existing Company Post-Amalgamation:
The petitioner company, formed by the amalgamation of Kaizen Stocktrade Pvt. Ltd. and Kaizen Finstock Pvt. Ltd., argued that the notice was issued to Kaizen Finstock Pvt. Ltd., a non-existing entity post-amalgamation. The court referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., which held that notices issued to non-existing entities post-amalgamation are fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. The court also cited the case of Gayatri Microns Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, which affirmed that notices issued to companies that ceased to exist due to amalgamation are invalid.

3. Compliance with Statutory Requirements for Intimation of Amalgamation:
The petitioner had informed the Income-tax Department about the amalgamation in response to a notice under Section 142(1) for the A.Y.2016-17. The court noted that the intimation provided by the petitioner was sufficient compliance, even though there was no specific format prescribed by the statute for such intimation. The court emphasized that the notice under Section 148 was issued by the same officer who had been informed about the amalgamation, making the notice invalid.

4. Applicability of Legal Precedents in Similar Cases:
The court analyzed relevant legal precedents, including the Supreme Court's decisions in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. and Principal Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. The court distinguished the present case from Mahagun Realtors, where the facts differed significantly. In the present case, the intimation of amalgamation was timely and adequately provided, aligning more closely with the Maruti Suzuki case, where the notice issued to a non-existing company was deemed invalid.

Conclusion:
The court concluded that the notice issued under Section 148 to Kaizen Finstock Pvt. Ltd., a non-existing entity post-amalgamation, was fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. The court quashed the impugned notice and granted consequential reliefs to the petitioner. The court also clarified that this decision does not preclude the respondent from initiating appropriate actions against the petitioner in accordance with the law. The petitions were disposed of in these terms.

---