Change of company name does not create a new legal person; tax recovery from a bank holding company funds remained valid.

A change of company name does not alter the company's constitution or legal identity; the same juristic person continues with its rights and liabilities under the new name. On that basis, recovery under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 could validly proceed against a bank holding funds for the assessee, because the bank remained a person holding money on account of the same company. Section 26 was inapplicable since there was no reconstitution of a firm and no legal succession from one person to another. The assessed tax liability therefore remained enforceable without a fresh assessment against the renamed company, and the notice was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether, after a company changed its name under the Companies Act, the Income-tax Officer could validly proceed under section 46(5A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 against a bank holding the company's funds without treating the renamed company as a successor requiring fresh assessment.

Analysis: A change of name does not alter the constitution or legal identity of the company; it remains the same juristic person with rights and obligations continuing under the new name. The machinery under section 46(5A) permits recovery from a person holding money for or on account of the assessee, and the bank continued to hold assets belonging to the same company notwithstanding the new name. Section 26 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 was inapplicable because there was neither reconstitution of a firm nor legal succession from one person to another. The liability to pay the assessed tax, therefore, remained enforceable without a fresh assessment against the renamed company.

Conclusion: The notice under section 46(5A) was valid and the challenge failed.

---