Locus to Appeal: former director lacks authority after strike-off; assessment finalized post-strike-off is not void.

A former director of a company struck off the register lacks locus to prosecute an appeal absent continuing authority or a valid successor; hence the appeal filed on behalf of the dissolved company is not maintainable. Where draft assessment issued while the company existed and the assessee failed to give timely, clear notice of discontinuance or establish an authorized representative or successor, subsequent striking off does not render the finalized assessment void ab initio; the assessment and DRP directions therefore stand on the facts presented.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appeal filed on behalf of an erstwhile company by its former director is maintainable; (ii) Whether the assessment order passed after the company's name was struck off the register is void as being passed against a non-existent entity.

Issue (i): Whether the appeal filed by the former director on behalf of the struck-off company is maintainable.

Analysis: The definition of assessee and related provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were examined to determine who may challenge an assessment. The material shows that the former director admitted lack of authority after dissolution, power of attorney had been withdrawn, and no board resolution or continuing authorization to prosecute the appeal was produced. Relevant recovery and liability provisions permit the revenue to proceed against assets or pursue directors only when recovery steps are taken; such contingent remedies do not confer general standing to challenge assessment merits. Coordinating precedents were considered distinguishing cases where successor entities or liquidation procedures left a successor or where the assessing authority was notified in time.

Conclusion: The appeal filed by the former director on behalf of the struck-off company is not maintainable; the former director lacks locus to challenge the assessment in these circumstances.

Issue (ii): Whether the assessment passed after the company's name was struck off is void as being passed against a non-existent entity.

Analysis: The chronology shows the draft assessment was issued while the company existed; the company's application to the registrar and subsequent strike-off occurred after the draft and the assessing authority and DRP were not timely and effectively notified of a lawful discontinuance in a manner that would trigger applicable provisions such as section 176 concerning discontinued business. The record includes communications indicating withdrawal of representation and failure to appear before the DRP. Precedents holding assessments void where the assessing authority had full notice and where dissolution occurred under circumstances creating a successor or where creditors' claims were addressed were distinguished on facts where the assessee did not provide timely, clear notice of discontinuance and did not establish a successor or representative to continue proceedings.

Conclusion: The assessment is not rendered void ab initio as a result of the subsequent striking off; on the facts the assessment stands and cannot be quashed on the ground of being passed against a non-existent entity.

Final Conclusion: Both issues being resolved against the appellant, the appeal is dismissed and the assessment and DRP directions are sustained; the former director lacked authority to maintain the appeal and the assessment is not invalidated on the ground of later strike-off.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a company's name is struck off after issuance of a draft assessment and the assessee does not provide timely, clear notification or an authorized successor to pursue or protect its interests, an assessment subsequently finalized is not automatically void as having been made against a non-existent entity; a former director who has no authority post-dissolution lacks locus to maintain an appeal.

---