TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 1088
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... By this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged: (i) Notice dated 31st March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") for assessment year 2016-17; and (ii) Order dated 30th March, 2022 passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act consequent to notice dated 31st March 2021. 3. The principal challenge is that the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act as well as the consequential assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 issued under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act has been passed in the name of CRVPL, a company which had ceased to exist prior thereto. 4. The facts in so far as relevant to the present petition are that CRVPL had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9. In response, the Petitioner, being the ex-director of CRVPL, vide his letter dated 07th June, 2021, once again brought to the notice of the Revenue that CRVPL had ceased to exist and had already been dissolved and that the same was also brought to the notice of Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings, pursuant to which an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was already passed in the name of erstwhile CRVPL, and placed reliance on judicial precedents in support of his contention (CRVPL). 10. Notwithstanding the above, the Assessing Officer proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order dated 30th March 2022 under Section 144, read with Section 147, of the Act determining the total income of CRVPL at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....' in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment order can be passed. He therefore submitted that in view of the settled position of law, the initiation of reassessment proceedings against CRVPL, a non-existent entity, is void ab initio. Consequently, the notice dated 31st March 2021 issued under Section 148 of the Act and the assessment order dated 30th March 2022 passed pursuant thereto cannot be sustained and ought to be quashed and set aside. 14. Per contra, Mr. Subir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, sought the leave of the Court to take appropriate steps under the Companies Act to apply to the appropriate forum to restore the company to the regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....asis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n 148, then naturally the impugned assessment order dated 30th March, 2022 also cannot be allowed to stand and is hereby quashed and set aside. This is for the simple reason that the said assessment order emanates from the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act. Also, the provisions of Section 250 of the Companies Act would not be applicable because on the date of the reopening notice, there was no liability/obligations to be fulfilled by the company. Therefore, the notice in the name of company which has already been struck off before the date of reopening is bad in law. 20. As regards the contention of Mr. Subir Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents, that steps may be allowed to be taken to revive the erstwh....