2020 (8) TMI 20

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench in I.T.A.Nos.473/Mds/2010 and I.T.A.No.549/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2000-01 and the following substantial question of law raised for consideration in these appeals: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding back to the file of AO for investigation as to whether the company was in existence at the relevant time by holding that the assessment order passed was nullity? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the issue back to AO without considering the provisions of Section 176(1) to 176(7) of the I.T.Act which provides for assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....bunal was called in question by the Revenue. In this question, we have elaborately heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.S.Premalatha, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The assessee for the very first time raised a new ground before the Tribunal stating that the assessment itself was bad in law and nullity, since the name of the assessee Company was struck off from the Register of Companies, even before the Assessment Order was passed. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to raise the ground as a additional ground stating that it goes to the very root of the matter. 4. After considering the submissions made by the asses....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ssed on 31.12.2007, is a nullity because the Company became non existent on and after 25.05.2007. 7. In support of his contention, Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019 (416) ITR 0613 [SC]). The said decision was relied on to support the contention that framing of an assessment against the non existing entities / persons is a jurisdictional defect and the Assessment Order is liable to be quashed. 8. Admittedly the assessment year is 2000-01, when the assessee Company was carrying on business. It is not in dispute that the assessee Company filed its Return of I....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....cheme of amalgamation, making an assessment in the name of non existing Company would render assessment invalid. While the facts of the present case as mentioned above are totally different, it cannot be applied to the case on hand. As mentioned earlier, the assessment is for the year 2000-01 which was reopened and striking off the name of the assessee Company from the Register of Companies occurred only on 21.05.2007, can in no manner impact the assessment for the year 2000-01. 10. The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Impsat Private Limited Vs. ITO, which has been referred to by the Tribunal in the Impugned Order pertains to a case where the Assessment Order was passed after the Company was struck off from the Re....