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

2025 Supreme(Online)(ITAT) 6521

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH)
SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, J, SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACJ
Assessee – Appellant
Versus
Revenue – Respondent
ITA No. 7430/Del/2019|ITA Nos. 3618, 3619 & 3620/Del/2018



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv., Shri Deepesh Garg, Adv.
For the Respondents: Shri Jitender Singh, CIT DR

Assessments made under Section 153A against non-existent entities are void ab initio, confirming jurisdictional deficiencies invalidate the assessment process.

Headnote:(A) Income Tax Act, 1961 - Section 153A - Invalidity of assessment - Assessment orders issued under Section 153A in respect of a non-existent entity are void ab initio. The appeals center around the legality of the assessments and jurisdiction assumed without proper notice, compounded by the entity's merger prior to the assessment order. (Paras 7, 9, 10, 11)

(B) Jurisdiction - Courts established that completing assessments against non-existent entities significantly violates procedural correctness, thus voiding the assessment. The principle from the Maruti Suzuki case was applied, indicating that jurisdictional actions based on outdated company identities are irreparably flawed. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from assessments completed in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist due to its merger with another company. The claims of improper notice, lack of opportunity for a hearing, and substantive miscalculations in tax obligations were highlighted. (Paras 2, 3, 4)

Findings of Court:
The assessments made were ruled invalid due to being directed at a non-existent entity, reaffirming that any assessment formulated on such grounds lacks legal standing. The prior communications regarding the merger were ignored by the assessing officers. (Paras 10, 11)

Issues: The crux was whether the tax authority had jurisdiction to assess a non-existent company and the implications of failure to notify of a merger. The court examined whether the assessment could be rendered valid despite procedural deviations. (Paras 6, 9)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that assessments conducted on entities that had merged and ceased to exist are invalid; participation by the successor entity in proceedings does not rectify such jurisdictional failings. Consistency in previously established legal principles underpins this conclusion. (Paras 10, 12)

Result: Appeals allowed, assessments quashed.

Table of Content
1. non-existence of entity affects jurisdiction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. arguments against assessment validity. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
3. court's critical view on jurisdictional notices. (Para 9)
4. assessment orders on non-existent entities are void. (Para 10)
5. quashing of assessments across multiple years. (Para 11 , 12)

ORDER

These appeals are filed by the Assessee against different orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Gurgaon for the assessment years 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2013-14. In all these appeals the assessee challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assuming the jurisdiction and issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act and the consequent assessment proceedings as bad in law and void ab initio when the entity in whose name notice u/s 153A was issued and assessment is framed did not exist. The assessee also challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on merits of the additions/disallowances made. Grounds of appeals are as under:

Grounds of ITA No.7430/D/2019, AY 2008-09:

1) “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O., in assuming jurisdiction and issue of notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Ld. Assessing Officer and the consequent assessment proceedings in the case are bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and the assessment framed is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case and void-ab initio, more so when the entity in whose name jurisdiction u/s 153A was assumed did not exist.

2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that too without serving mandatory notice u/s 143(2) within the statutory allowable period.

3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs.1,34,90,000/- on account of share capital received by the company and that too in the proceedings u/s 153 A of the Act.

4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.1,34,90,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

5) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in charging interest u/s 234B, more so when such interest could not be levied under the law.

6) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. A.O. in passing the impugned order without giving adequate opportunity of being heard and by not observing the principles of natural justice.

7) That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

Grounds of ITA No.3618/D/2018, AY 2010-11:

1) “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O., in assuming jurisdiction and issue of notice u/s 153A of the Act, more so when the notice was issued in the name of non-existing entity and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing.

2) That in any case and in any view of the matter, the assessment framed u/s 153A(1)(b) of the Act, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the Ld. A.O. in making disallowance of Rs.1,13,716/- u/s 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 , that too in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act.

4) That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirmin

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