SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Manmohan, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JJ.
Karida Real Estates Private Limited - Appellant
Versus
Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7074 of 2022 & CM Appls. 21705-21706 of 2022
Decided On : 02-06-2022




Reassessment proceedings are invalid if initiated against a non-existent entity and without considering the taxpayer's response, breaching principles of natural justice.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 148A(d) and Section 148 - Challenge to reassessment order - Issuance of notice to a non-existent entity constitutes a substantive illegality, not merely a procedural violation - No consideration given to petitioner’s reply, breaching principles of natural justice. (Paras 2, 3, 5)

(B) Reassessment proceedings - Essential that there is a substantive basis for reassessment in the form of income escapement information. (Para 3)

Facts of the case:
The writ petition contests the reassessment proceedings initiated against the petitioner, a real estate company, on grounds of notice being issued to a non-existent entity due to amalgamation.

Findings of Court:
The court sets aside the impugned order and notice for failing to consider the petitioner’s filed reply, directing a fresh order to be passed within eight weeks.

Issues: The core issue was whether the reassessment was valid in light of the notice being issued to a non-existent entity and lack of consideration of the petitioner's response.

Ratio Decidendi: The issuance of notice to a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality; the Assessing Officer must consider all relevant responses in reassessment proceedings.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. challenge to reassessment order under income tax act. (Para 1)
2. invalidity of reassessment notice due to non-existent entity and violation of natural justice. (Para 2 , 3)
3. acknowledgment of failure to consider petitioner's reply. (Para 4)
4. court sets aside notice and order for non-consideration of reply. (Para 5)
5. court's order and clarification on merits. (Para 6)

JUDGMENT

Manmohan, J. (Oral)--Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 4th April, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short `the Act'] as well as the notice dated 4th April, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2018-19.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reassessment proceedings are void ab initio as they have been issued in the name of "Damian Estate Developers Private Limited a non-existent entity as it had amalgamated with the Petitioner company with effect from 1st April, 2016 vide order dated 7th February, 2018 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. She relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC), wherein it has been held that the issuance of a notice to a non-existent company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the there is no information and/or suggestion in respect of escapement of income of the petitioner, which is a sine qua non for taking an action under Section 148 of the Act as each and every amount/transaction mentioned in the show cause notice had been appropriately disclosed and offered to tax while computing taxable income of the Petitioner in Assessment Year 2018-19. She also states that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice without taking into consideration the reply dated 25th March, 2022 filed by the Petitioner.

4. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel accepts notice on behalf of the Respondents-Revenue. He on instructions of the Assessing Officer admits that the Petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration while passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.

5. Keeping in view the fact that the impugned order and notice have been issued without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, this Court sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Respondent No.1both dated 4th April, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law after considering the reply filed by the Petitioner within eight weeks.

6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and applications are disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contention of all the parties are left open.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top