TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appropriate writ for quashing of the Impugned Draft Assessment Order dated 05.03.2025 issued under Section 144C(1) of the Act for the AY 2022-23 passed by the Respondent in the name of Paul Wurth India Private Limited ('PWIPL' or 'the Company') which stood amalgamated with effect from 01.04.2021 as being void ab initio, and all proceedings/actions pursuant/ consequent thereto." 2. The case of the petitioner as contended by Mr. Sachit Jolly learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner is that the assessment order has been passed in the name of M/s Paul Wurth India Pvt. Ltd. which stood amalgamated with M/s SMS India Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.04.2021, as such the order is void ab initio. According to him, the proceedings have been initiat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to carry on that business or profession- (a) the predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession; (b) the successor shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the assessment of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession and of the previous year preceding that year shall be made on the successor in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor, and all the provisions of this Act shall, so f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ub-section (15). Moreover, it has been urged that in consequence, the final assessment order dated 31-10-2016 was beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153(4). For the purposes of the present proceeding, we do not consider it necessary to delve into that aspect of the matter having regard to the reasons which have weighed us in the earlier part of this judgment. 35. On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 525] (Jai Prakash Singh). That was a case where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime. His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... contending that since the notices were sent in the name of the Maharaja of Patiala and not to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments were illegal. The Bombay High Court held that the successor Maharaja was a legal representative of the deceased and while it would have been better to so describe him in the notice, the notice was not bad merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh [CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh, (1996) 3 SCC 525] held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a dis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in the proceedings by the appellant in 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....