TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 770
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'I.T. Act'), and the Notice dated 31st August 2024 issued under Section 148 thereof on the ground that the Impugned Notice was issued to a non-existent entity and it is therefore invalid. The Assessment Year in question is Assessment Year 2018-19. 3. The present Petitioner is a successor to the erstwhile entity named Starlight Systems (I) LLP (hereinafter referred to as 'Starlight LLP'). The brief facts of the case are that Starlight LLP filed its return of income for A.Y. 2018-19 which was processed under Section 143(1) of the I.T. Act. Thereafter, Starlight LLP's case was selected for scrutiny relating to A.Y. 2018-19 and an Assessment Order dated 27th September 2021 came to be passed un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....x Portal, which was accepted by the Department on 31st July 2024. 5. Despite this being the position, the Petitioner states that the Department issued yet another Show Cause Notice dated 17th August 2024, under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act, for the A.Y. 2018-19, in the name of Starlight LLP seeking to re-open their case. The Petitioner, on behalf of Starlight LLP, filed a response on 26th August 2024 challenging the reassessment on merits. Consequently, the Impugned Order dated 31st August 2024 came to be passed under Section 148A(d), concluding that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment in the case of Starlight LLP. The Impugned Notice dated 31st August 2024 was also issued in the name of Starlight LLP. 6. At the outset,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to the Show Cause Notice issued under Section 148A(b) of the I.T. Act. He further relies on a judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 28(1), New Delhi [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi) to submit that in any case, such an irregularity in the Impugned Notice would be a curable defect under Section 292B of the I.T. Act as opposed to a jurisdictional defect. He further drew our attention to the fact that an SLP was filed against this judgment in Sky Light (supra) and the same came to be dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 92 taxmann.com 93 (SC). Accordingly, he submitted that the Impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Section 148A(d) of the I.T. Act and the Impugned Notice issued under Section 148 thereof. The only issue before us is whether the same could have been passed/issued in the name of a non-existent entity. It is not in dispute that the erstwhile entity i.e. Starlight Systems (I) LLP was converted into a Private Limited Company [Starlight Systems(I) Pvt. Ltd.], which in turn, merged into the Petitioner Company vide NCLT's Order dated 29th July 2024 (Exhibit 'L'). It is also not in dispute that the Petitioner had intimated the Income Tax Department about the amalgamation scheme prior to approval of the same. Even after approval of the scheme, the Petitioner had taken steps and made a request on the Income Tax Portal to that effect and the same ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....facts of the case". In fact, even the Delhi High Court had clarified that the decision was in the case's peculiar facts. 26. In that case, there was substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record to show that issuing the notice in the name of the dissolved company was only a mistake. The Court held that the Special Leave Petition filed by the Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge was dismissed in the peculiar facts of the case, which weighed with the Court in concluding that there was merely a clerical mistake within meaning of Section 292B. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in Maruti Suzuki (supra) the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdi....