TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (1) TMI 1238
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r>M.S. SONAK & JITENDRA JAIN, JJ. For the Petitioner in WP/722/1999: Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Mr. P. C. Tripathi, Mr. Ashwin Dave, Mr. Ketan Dave, Mr. Amit Mathur and Mr. Gaurav Gangal i/b. A. S. Dayal & Associates. Mr. J. D. Mistri, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Madhur Agrawal, Mr. Fenil Bhatt, Mr. P. C. Tripathi, Mr. Ashwin Dave, Mr. Ketan Dave, Mr. Amit Mathur and Mr. Gaurav Gangal i/b. A. S. Dayal & Associates For the Appellant in ITXA/1313/2007, ITXA/1380/2007, ITXA/970/2007, ITXA/971/2007, ITXA/722/2007 and ITXA/723/2007 and for Respondent in ITXA/6033/2010 and ITXA/6099/2010. For the Appellant: Mr. Vipul Bajpayee in ITXA/6033/10 and ITXA/6099/10. For the Respondent: Mr. Suresh Kum....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Accordingly, we list these matters on 14 January 2025 at 2.30 p.m. after the Public Interest Litigation which is specifically fixed tomorrow." 3. Today, we have heard Mr. Mistri, the learned senior advocate for the Appellant and Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, the learned counsel for the Revenue. 4. Mr. Mistri submitted that the question that is proposed to be raised now goes to the root of the matter and challenges the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to pass an assessment order in the name of a non-existing entity. Mr. Mistri pointed out that insofar as the assessment year 1993-1994 involved in Income Tax Appeal Nos.1381 of 2007 and 1313 of 2007 is concerned, there is material to show that the Assessing Officer was i....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ated with another company and thereby lost its existence, the assessment order passed in the name of the said non-existing entity would be without jurisdiction and was liable to be set aside. 7. Mr. Suresh Kumar and Mr. Vipul Bajpayee submitted that the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) was considerably watered down in PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. [2022] 137 Taxmann.com 91 (SC). They pointed out that for the assessment year 1993-1994, there was nothing on record to show that the Assessing Officer was informed about the merger and consequent dissolution of the assessee-companies. They submitted that there was no prejudice because RIL represented the merged companies. They submitted that such an issue was never raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to the root of the jurisdiction, and there is no necessity to investigate new facts or if there is no serious dispute on facts. In that case, such a question can be framed even though the same may not have been raised in the earlier proceedings before the original or appellate authority. Consent, per se, cannot confer jurisdiction upon an authority where such jurisdiction is inherently lacking. 10. In Ashish Estates & Properties (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 96 taxmann.com 305 (Bombay), the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that a question which was not raised before Tribunal should not ordinarily be allowed to be raised in an appeal under Section 260A unless it was a question on the issue of jurisdiction or question....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ons raised before the Apex Court were a question of jurisdiction. Therefore, the same was, in a sense, allowed to be raised for the first time even before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. However, the matter was remanded to the Tribunal for a decision on the said questions. 14. In Veena Estate (P.) Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 158 taxmann.com 341 (Bombay), the issue of prejudice on account of the allegation concerning breach of natural justice was sought to be raised for the first time before the High Court. Since the issue of prejudice involved an investigation into facts and further, since such an issue was never raised before the original authority or the first appellate authorities, this Court did not permit such an issue to ....