TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 269
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd Space Technologies Limited') is a Listed Public Company engaged in defence engineering & manufacturing. Vide Order dated 07.06.2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) approved the scheme of amalgamation of M/s Mechvac India Limited and M/s Concept Shapers And Electronics Private Limited ("erstwhile/transferor company") with the Petitioner, whereby the former companies got amalgamated into the Petitioner w.e.f. 01.04.2017. 4. It is submitted by the Petitioner that details about the said amalgamation were duly communicated to the Income Tax department during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-19. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17.12.2020 (annexed as Exhibit A2 to the Writ Petition) specifically asking for the details about the scheme of amalgamation. The Petitioner responded to the said notice vide submission dated 01.02.2021 (annexed as Exhibit A3 to the Writ Petition) and provided details of the amalgamation inter alia of the erstwhile/transferor company named 'Concept Shapers And Electronics Private Limited' (hereinafter referred to as "Concept"). Thereafter, the order of assessment for the said Assessment Year (AY 20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 92 (SC). Once, such transferor company ceases to exist, it cannot fall within the definition of a 'person' as defined under Section 2(31) of the Act. Consequently, no proceedings can be conducted in respect of a 'person' which no longer exists. Thus, the notices and the impugned Assessment Order, having been issued in the name of a non-existent entity, were void-ab-inito and bad in law. In support of this contention the Petitioner relied upon the following judicial precedents: - PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) - Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CST (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Delhi HC) - Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT [WP No. 2742/2019 (Bom.)] -New Age Buildtech Private Limited v. NFAC [WP/5308 /2022] (Bom.) - J. M. Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India [WPL/16514/2023] (Bom.) - Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 3562/2019 (Bom.)] - Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. DCIT [WPL No. 21009/2021 (Bom.)] - CIT v. Intel Technology India (P) Ltd [2016] 380 ITR 272 (Kar.) - PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Network India (P) Ltd. [2018] 402 ITR 21 (D....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....state that wrong selection of the name of the Assessee was merely on account of a technical glitch in the computer system. Such an explanation being provided for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply appears to be an afterthought. Also, Respondent No. 1 has not brought on record any evidence/material which substantiates its averment about the socalled technical glitch on the computer system. (b) That continuing and concluding the assessment in the name of a non-existent entity cannot be regarded as a mistake curable under Section 292B as held in following judicial precedents: - PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) - Alok Knit Exports Limited v. DCIT (supra) (c) That merely because the Petitioner participated in the assessment proceedings by itself does not cure the jurisdictional error committed by Respondent No. 1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) has also held that participation in the proceedings by the Assessee cannot operate as an estoppel against law. (d) That the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra) has been duly considered by the Hon'bl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er in the name of Concept, for an Assessment year which falls subsequent to its cessation, certainly cannot be pardoned as a curable defect. 15. The argument of the revenue that issuance of notice/order in the name of a non-existent entity is a curable defect pursuant to the provision of Section 292B, has already been negated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra), wherein it was inter-alia held as under: "31. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292B. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....up to the date of succession; (b) the successor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in subsection (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 far as may be, apply accordingly. (3) When any sum payable under this section in respect of the income of such business or profession for the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession or for the previous year preceding that year, assesseed on the predecessor, cannot be recovered from him, the 99[Assessing] Officer shall record a finding to that effect and the sum payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and recoverable from the successor and the successor shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid. (4) Where any business or....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra). We find that this decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that case, the concerned Assessing Officer, in the reasons recorded for reopening, had duly reported/stated the fact that the assessee therein was formerly known by the name 'Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd.' and after conversion was known by the name 'Sky Light Hospitality LLP'. However, the Notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of erstwhile entity ''Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.' Conversion of the private limited company into a limited liability partnership with effect from 13.05.2016 was noticed and mentioned by the Assessing Officer at several places like in the tax evasion report, the reasons to believe recorded by the Assessing Officer, the approval obtained from the Principal Commissioner and the order under Section 127 of the Act. It was in this background that the High Court of Delhi observed that there was substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record which established that issuance of notice in the name of 'Skylight Hospi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....thin the purview of Section 292B for the following reasons: ... .... .... .... .... .... ..." 17. Even this court in the case of Alok Knit Exports Limited v. DCIT (supra) had declined to follow the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra) citing the following: "5. Mr. Mohanty appearing for respondents submitted that it was a human error which could be corrected under section 292B of the Act. According to Mr. Mohanty human errors and mistakes cannot and should not nullify proceedings which were otherwise valid and no prejudice has been caused. Mr. Mohanty, relying upon the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413/254 Taxman 109/405 ITR 296, submitted that that was the effect and mandate of section 292B of the Act. Mr. Mohanty also relied upon the order passed by the Apex Court when Sky Light Hospitality LLP (supra) was escalated to the Apex Court Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 92 taxmann.com 93/254 Taxman 390. These do not help Mr. Mohanty's case. This cannot be a general proposition as the Apex Court has expressly stated ....