2022 (8) TMI 137

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....earned Senior Advocate Mr. Manish Bhatt waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondent. 3. The issue involved in these petitions is identical and therefore, the petitions have been heard together and disposed of by this common judgement. For the sake of convenience, facts are recorded from Special Civi Application No. 5803 fo 2022. 4. By way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged notice dated 30.03.2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2015-16. 5. Brief facts of the case are as under: 5.1 The petitioner was formerly known as Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. One Bilfinger Plant Equipment Pvt. Ltd merged with Bilfing....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....eo structo Construction Private Limited for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 5.8 It is the case of the petitioner that impugned notice is issued proposing to reassess the total income of the non-existing company i.e. Bilfinger Plant Equipments Pvt. Ltd, which had been merged with Bilfinger Neo Structo Pvt. Ltd. With appointed dated 01/04/2014, pursuant to the scheme of merger approved by Bombay High Court vide order dated 27.04.2015. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Dhinal Shah has submitted that in view of the fact that notice has been issued under section 148 of the Act,1961 to the present petitioner, the present notice under section 148 issued to the non-existent entity cannot survive. Hence, the same may be quashed and set aside. 7. Learned ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. 10. Similarly, this court, in the judgment in the case of Dha....