आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member and Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member Assessment Year: 2014-15 Raghupati Mercantiles Pvt. Ltd.……………………….……….……….……Appellant Room No.4, C/o India Bearing House, 34, Strand Road, 1^st Floor, Opp. Armenian Ghat, Kol- 1..

[PAN: AACCR9479D]

vs.

ITO, Ward-49(1), Kolkata………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by:

Shri Sandeep Vijh, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant.

Shri S. B. Chakraborthy, Sr. DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent.

Date of concluding the hearing : August 25, 2025 Date of pronouncing the order : September 11, 2025 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member:

The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 28.12.2024 of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”].

2. The brief facts of the case of the assessee are that the assessee did not file return of income for the assessment year 2017-18. An information was received from DCIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi and it was noticed that the assessee M/s Raghupati Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. have given unsecured loan to M/s Punj Lloyd Upstream Ltd. of Rs.50,00,000/- and source of such unsecured loan remained unexplained during the financial year 2013-14. After obtaining approval from the competent authority, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 148 along with order u/s 148A(d) of the Act but the assessee remained silent and failed to file return of income. The assessee filed its compliance in pursuance to notice u/s 142(1) of the Act and the assessee objected the reopening on the ground of issuance of notice to non-existent entity but the Assessing Officer did not find the objection tenable and added the said income of Rs.50,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.

3. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), wherein, the appeal of the assessee has been allowed for statistical purposes by sending the appeal of the assessee before the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication on merit.

4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied, the assessee preferred appeal before us. The main contention of the assessee in the course of argument is that the order passed against a non-existent entity is bad in law. The ld. AR submits that the assessee in its reply before the Assessing Officer has already informed that the company was not in existent and the company was converted to LLP even though the order and the notice issued was issued against a non-existent company so it is bad in law. He has cited decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki reported in 416 ITR 613 and also the order passed by the ITAT Kolkata Bench in the case of Madhuban Dealers Pvt. Ltd. reported in 69 CCH 152.

5. Contrary to that, the ld. DR supports the impugned order.

6. Upon hearing the submissions of the counsels of the respective parties and on perusing the impugned order as well as documents filed by the assessee, we find that there is no denying to this fact that the notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued in the name of the assessee and the copy of the said notice is extracted hereinbelow:

6.1 We further find that the assessee had already filed certificate of registration of conversion of the assessee to Raghupati Mercantiles LLP and the said document is extracted hereinbelow:

6.2 We have gone through the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) in which the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

“Assessment-Assessment against a non-existing entity—Jurisdictional defect--Assessee filed return of income-During assessment proceeding, AO noted that assessee was a JV between SMC and MSIL-Assessee was known upon incorporation as SMIL-Subsequently, w.e.f. 8 June 2005, its name was changed to SPIL--Return of income w