TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (11) TMI 656
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....- [PER B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.] 1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally. 2. The present Petition challenges the notice dated 30th March 2021 issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["IT Act"]. This notice was issued to a company called "Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy Private Limited" [hereinafter referred to as the "erstwhile company"], which ceased to exist with effect from 17th March 2016 after its conversion into the Petitioner LLP [Erangal Comtrade and Consultancy LLP]. The impugned notice issued under section 148 seeks to reassess the income of the erstwhile company for A. Y. 2017-18. After the issuance of the section 148 notice, a draft assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mited Liability Partnership Rules, 2009 read with the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008, seeking its conversion into an LLP. 5. Pursuant to the aforesaid application filed by the erstwhile company, the Registrar granted a certificate of registration in Form No.19 in terms of Rule 32(1) of the LLP Rules read with section 58(1) of the LLP Act, certifying the conversion of the erstwhile company into the Petitioner LLP with effect from 17th March 2016. Pursuant to the grant of such certificate of conversion, the erstwhile company ceased to exist and the Petitioner LLP stood incorporated on 17th March 2016. 6. For A.Y. 2016-17, the erstwhile company filed its return of income offering to tax, income relating to the period from 1st Ap....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ppear in the Petitioner LLP's Form 26AS. 9. Accordingly, the Petitioner LLP filed a rectification application with the Assessing Officer explaining the facts relating to the conversion and claiming the said TDS credit. This rectification application is still pending. Apart from the rectification application, the Petitioner also filed an Appeal from the assessment order dated 4th December 2019 and the same is also pending before the CIT (Appeals). 10. Be that as it may, on 30th March 2021, the 1st Respondent (the Assessing Officer) issued the impugned notice under section 148 seeking to reassess the income of the erstwhile company for A.Y. 2017-18. In response to this notice, the Petitioner LLP informed the 1st Respondent that the erst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....30th March 2022 was passed against the erstwhile company assessing the amount of Rs. 22,11,00,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 and interest of Rs. 50,34,979/- as undisclosed income arising thereon. Consequently, a notice of demand of Rs. 16,57,21,500/- was also issued to the erstwhile company. 13. In this factual backdrop, we have heard Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, as well as Mr. Mishra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue. As mentioned earlier, the first challenge to the notice issued under section 148 is that the same is issued against a non-existent entity rendering the same illegal and bad-in law. As far as this issue is concerned, we find that fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a coordinate Bench of two learned Judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on 2-11-2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the special leave petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353]. 37. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the Court must abide by in promoting the interest of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is for the simple reason that the said assessment order emanates from the notice issued under section 148. 17. Considering the finding given by us in the present order, we need not burden this judgement with the other issues canvassed on behalf of the Petitioner viz. (a) that the final impugned assessment order could not have been passed without first disposing of the objections filed by the Petitioner to the reasons for reopening the assessment, or (b) that in the facts of the present case, there was no escapement of income. 18. Mr. Pardiwalla, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, has stated that the Petitioner has also filed an Appeal before the CIT (Appeals) challenging the impugned assessment order da....