TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (4) TMI 511
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....et taxable income of Rs. 7,77,14,414/- and passed the order under section 143(3) of the I.T. Act on dated 29th December, 2011. 4. The assessee challenged the additions on merits as well as validity of the assessment proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee-company filed an order dated 30th May, 2011 of the Registrar of Companies, NCT of Delhi and Haryana under section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956 mentioning that w.e.f. 30th May, 2011, the name of the assessee-company is struck-off the register and the company stood dissolved. In view of the same, the assessee-company submitted that assessment order dated 29th December, 2011 passed by the A.O. has been passed on a non-existent company and therefore, void abinitio. The assessee-company also filed copy of the notice dated 18th April, 2011 being notice under section 560(3) of the Companies Act, 1956, copy of which, was forwarded to the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax as well. A copy of the order dated 30th May, 2011 under section 560(5) was endorsed to the Income Tax Officer as well. However, Ld. CIT(A) noted that the said copies filed by the assessee-company do not confirm wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... It was stated in the affidavit filed on behalf of the Company that assesseecompany does not have any dues towards income tax/sales tax/central excise/banks and financial institutions or other statutory authorities. The A.O. however, reported that since legitimate tax due based upon balance sheet of the assesseecompany, therefore, there were dues against the assesseecompany. The matter was taken-up with the ROC to recall the order which have been obtained by fraudulent means. However, reply received from ROC states that revival of the subject Company under section 560(6) of the Companies Act, is not within the powers of the ROC and the assessee-company has to move before Hon'ble High Court for revival of the Company and recovery of the dues. The opinion from the Standing Counsel is awaited. However, opinion from Senior Standing Counsel is obtained which is forwarded to the Ld. CIT(A). The A.O. on addition on merit also, submitted the remand report. It was reiterated by the A.O. that assessee-company obtained the order under section 560 of the Companies Act by fraudulent means. The A.O. also objected to the admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A. The remand report from....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mpany which was not in existence as on that date in the eyes of law it had already been dissolved. The Tribunal relied upon its earlier decision in Impsat Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO 276 ITR 136 (AT). We are of the opinion that the view taken by the Tribunal is perfectly valid and in accordance with law. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed." 6.2. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India (P.) Ltd., (2018) 90 taxmann.com 369 (Del.) in which it was held that "assessment made in case of non-existent entity is a nullity." 6.3. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT-6, New Delhi vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., (2017) 85 taxmann.com 330 (Del.) / 397 ITR 681 in which it was held as under : "Where during pendency of assessment proceedings, assessee-company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in the name of said nonexisting entity would be without jurisdiction and deserved to be set aside." 6.4. Judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd., vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 in which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....question. Therefore, the assessment order could not have been declared nullity. In the instant case, the financial year ended on 31st March, 2002 whereas, the amalgamation took place w.e.f. November, 2002. The Ld. D.R, therefore, submitted that appeal of the assessee may be dismissed. 8. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee-company placed on record the order of ROC, Delhi and Haryana, dated 30th May, 2011 whereby, pursuant to Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956, the name of the assessee-company has been struckoff in the Register of Companies and the assessee-company is dissolved. Therefore, w.e.f. 30th May, 2011, the assesseecompany became non-existent and stood dissolved. The A.O. however, passed the assessment order on 29th December, 2011 i.e., after dissolution of the assessee-company. Therefore, there could not have been any valid assessment order passed against the assessee-company which was not in existence as on the day of passing of the assessment order because it had already been dissolved. The assessment in the case of non-existing entity is thus nullity. Therefore, A.O. had no jurisdiction to pass the order ag....