IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘A’: NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No:- 2878/Del/2023 (Assessment Year- 2012-13)

ANR Hospitality Services, Income Tax Officer, Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ward-2(1), Delhi.

PAN No: AAJCA0788M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri TN Singla, CA Revenue by : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 27.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2025 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM:

The appeal in hand is filed against the impugned order of Ld.

First Appellate Authority, Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), order dated 14.08.2023, arising out of assessment order U/s

144/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’).

2. Upon hearing the Ld. AR, we find that the name of the company stands struck off in the office of Registrar of Companies (ROC), Delhi. The Ld. AR has submitted this name was struck of well before the notice u/s 144 of the Act, dated 21.11.2019. It was submitted that the assessment order was passed on a non existing entity. The Ld. AR has submitted that Ld. First Appellate Authority has also not given due opportunity of hearing and has not considered the fact that due to striking off the name of the assessee, the notices for assessment were not duly served.

3. On the basis of aforesaid, the Bench has questioned the locus standi of Mr.Vinod Sablok, erstwhile Director, in filing this appeal. It was submitted that as this assessment order can give rise to liability on the erstwhile Director, thus erstwhile director has the locus standi to challenge the assessment order. During the course of herring, it also came up that neither the revenue nor the assessee company have filed application before the National Company Law Tribunal for the restoration of the name.

4. In this regard, his bench is of the considered view that once the name of assessee was struck from ROC then the assessee lost its juristic personality and consequently the erstwhile director would no more represent the assessee company, in any capacity what so ever. Admittedly no recovery under the impugned assessment is initiated against the assessee company or the directors by any proceedings under Section 179 of the Act. Where section 179 of the Act is in itself a charging section that creates liability on the directors for tax dues by a company then in the absence of any such proceedings the director does not have any locus to challenge the assessment order against the erstwhile company.

5. A Co-ordinate Bench, in which one of us i.e Judicial Member was on the Bench at Delhi in ITA No.1866/Del/2022 Boopendradas (Vikash) Sungker, as ex-Director of Red Fort India Real Estate Humayun, 5th Floor, Ebene Esplanade, 24, Bank Street, Cyber City, Mauritius – 72201 Versus DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi - 110 002 vide order dated 06.09.2024, has considered the controversy with regard to validity of assessment order passed on a company whose name has been struck off and has also held that erstwhile Director has no locus standi to file an appeal challenging the assessment order consequential first appellate order and has held as follows;

“24. There is more to look into if Mr. Boopendradas (Vikash) Sungker, being former director has any locus standi to challenge the assessment order against the erstwhile company, on question of law or merits of addition. The definition of 'assessee', as given u/s 2(7) of the Act provides as follows:-

"Section 2(7). "assessee" means a person by whom any tax or any other sum of money is payable under this Act, and includes--

(a) every person in respect of whom any proceeding under this Act has been taken for the assessment of his income or assessment of fringe benefits or of the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable, or of the loss sustained by him or by such other person, or of the amount of refund due to him or to such other person;

(b) every person who is deemed to be an assessee under an