2021 (11) TMI 431

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....o be treated as a mistake and the name given in the notice could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the said Act). Respondents have relied upon a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax., Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) In the said affidavit, it is also stated that the said order of Delhi High Court has been subsequently affirmed on 6th April 2018 by a two Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court. This submission has been considered by this court in Alok Knit Exports Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax in its order dated 10th August 2021 in Writ Petition No.2742 of 2019. Paragraphs 5 to 9 of the said order read as under:....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Ltd. (supra) has also observed that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of that case. The Apex Court has reiterated the settled position that the basis on which jurisdiction is invoked is under Section 148 of the Act and when such jurisdiction was invoked on the basis of something which was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation, the notice is bad in law. The Apex Court has held as under : In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notic....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... merged with M/s. Alok Knit Exports Private Limited (PAN : AACCA8337K) is an Assessee of this charge." 8 The stand now taken in the affidavit in reply and submissions of Mr. Mohanty is nothing but an afterthought by respondent after having committed a fundamental error. We would have expected respondent no.1 to have atleast applied his mind and looked for documents which were already on file to see whether Niraj Realtors existed before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act. Respondents' records would have indicated that Niraj Realtors ceased to exist and his predecessor/colleague has issued notice for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 alongwith the reasoning in the name of petitioner. 9 Therefore, the stand of respondent....