TANUJ PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR TO KUHU PROPERTIES PVT. LTD.),KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 9(1),, KOLKATA

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ “डी’’, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA �ी राजेश कुमार, लेखा सट�य एवं �ी �द�प कुमार चौबे, �या�यक सद�य के सम� [Before Shri Rajesh Kumar, Accountant Member& Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member] I.T.A. Nos. 686/Kol/2026 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata (Successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.)

(PAN: AACCK 8128 Q) ( अपीलाथ� ) Respondent / ��यथ� Appellant / Date of Hearing / सुनवाई 15.06.2026 क� �त�थ Date of Pronouncement/ 13.07.2026 आदेश उ�घोषणा क� �त�थ For the Appellant/ Shri Akkal Dudhwewala, AR �नधा�रती क� ओर से For the Respondent/ Shri Dheeraj, JCIT, Sr. DR राज�व क� ओर से

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 06.01.2026 for the AY 2018-19. 2. At the time of hearing, the ld. AR pressed the legal issue that the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 29.03.2021 issued in the name of non-existing company (amalgamating

2 I.T.A. No.686/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.) company) was bad in law, which vitiated the impugned assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed by the ld. AO.

3 I.T.A. No.686/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.) amalgamated company acquired a new status and it was not possible to treat the two companies as partners or jointly liable in respect of their liabilities and assets.” 6. The case of the assessee is covered by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613, wherein it has been held as under:

“The assessee SPIL was a joint venture between SMC and MSIL. It filed its return declaring certain taxable income. The return was processed under section 143(1) and then picked up for scrutiny. Notices under section 143(2) were issued. Subsequently, the High Court passed an order approving the Scheme of Amalgamation by which SPIL (Amalgamating Company) was amalgamated with 'MSIL (Amalgamated Company) with effect from 1-4-2012. Thereafter. assessment proceedings continued with the participation of MSIL representing SPIL in the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under section 143(3), read with section 144C(1) in the name of SPIL. The assessee filed appeal where one of the grounds urged was that the assessment order was without jurisdiction in as much as it had been passed in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist on the date of the assessment order. The Tribunal accepted the said plea of the assessee as a result of which the assessment order was set aside. On revenue's appeal the High Court following its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2011-12 affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that. “33 In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment (supra) on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainmenthos been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment (supra) 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable 35. For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4 I.T.A. No.686/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.)

Order is pronounced in the open court on 13th July, 2026

Sd/- Sd/- (Pradip Kumar Choubey /�द�प कुमार चौबे) (Rajesh Kumar/राजेश कुमार) Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Dated: 13th July, 2026 SM, Sr. PS

5 I.T.A. No.686/Kol/2026 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.)

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor to Kuhu Properties Pvt. Ltd.), C/o-Tanuj Properties Pvt. Ltd. (successor company) 6th Floor, Unit 6A, 238, AJC Bose Road, Kolkata, L.R. Sarani, Kolkata-700020 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata