Skip to main content

Reassessment Notice on Non-Existing Company is not legally Tenable

Cause Title : Pranesh Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & ors, WPA 2476 of 2023, Calcutta High Court

Date of Judgment/Order : 10.02.2023

Corum : Md. Nizamuddin, J.

Citied: 

Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, SCC OnLine Guj 6462, 2016

Background

The petitioner challenged the impugned notice dated June 23, 2021 relating to assessment year 2014-15 under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is a transferor company on the grounds that the impugned notice has been issued in the name of the company which has already been amalgamated in.2020 and that the department has been intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record and such notice in the name of a non-existing company is not tenable in the eye of law.

Judgment

The High Court observed that the impugned notices under section 148 of the Income Tax Act have been issued against the original assessee on 21.01.2011 to reopen the assessment for the Assessment year 2009-10. The petitioners-original was amalgamated with Takshasila Gruh Nirman (Subsequently named as Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd) with effect from 01.04.2010. Under the circumstances, when the impugned notices are issued against the original assessee-amalgamating Company on 21.01.2011, it can be said that the same has been issued against the non- existent Company. It cannot be disputed that once the scheme for amalgamation has been sanctioned by the Court with effect from 01.04.2010, from that date amalgamating Company would not be in existence. Under the circumstances, the impugned notices, which are issued against the non-existent Company, cannot be sustained and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. In the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd., the Division Bench of the High Court had under similar circumstances had held that in such a situations the assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the transferee Company taking into account the income of both the transferor and transferee Company.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more