M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore vs. Income Tax Department Bhopal

PDF · subscribers
WP/31857/2024HC Madhya Pradesh06 January 2025Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI2 pages
For Petitioner: Sanjay Kumar PatelFor Respondent: 0
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court allowed the writ petition. It held that the order dated 22.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was liable to be quashed as it was issued against an entity that had amalgamated with another entity and ceased to exist prior to the passing of the order. The Court found that the principle laid down in its previous order dated 20.11.2024 in W.P. No. 13145/2024 was squarely applicable to the present case. The petition was disposed of in the same terms as the earlier writ petition, meaning the order under challenge was set aside. No specific issue was left undecided.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Indore) Ltd., Indore, challenged an order dated 22.03.2024 passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by respondent No. 2 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. The petitioner contended that the order was passed against a non-existent entity because it had amalgamated with another entity effective from 01.04.2018. Therefore, the petitioner argued, the order was without jurisdiction and bad in law. The Income Tax Department, represented by respondent No. 3, had no objection to the petitioner's submission.

What were the issues?

1. Whether an order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, against an entity that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is without jurisdiction and bad in law? (Question of law) The petitioner argued that the order was passed against a non-existent entity, rendering it void ab initio and beyond the jurisdiction of the assessing authority. The petitioner relied on a previous order of the High Court in W.P. No. 13145/2024, which allowed a similar petition. The revenue, through its counsel, did not contest the petitioner's submission and had no objection to the petition being disposed of in terms of the cited precedent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148A(d)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI & HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA ON THE 6th OF JANUARY, 2025 WRIT PETITION No. 31857 of 2024 M.P. AUDYOGIK KENDRA VIKAS NIGAM (INDORE) LTD., INDORE Versus INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT BHOPAL AND OTHERS Appearance: Shri Sanjay Kumar Patel - Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Harpreet Singh Gupta - Advocate for the respondents through Video Conferencing. ORDER Per: Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari In the instant Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 22.03.2024 passed under Section 148(A)d of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by respondent No.2 in case No.ITBA/AST/F/148A/2023-24/1063177056(1) for the Assessment Year 2020-21 inter alia on the ground that the same was passed against an entity which has been amalgamated with another entity with effect from 01.04.2018 and by virtue of which has ceased to remain in existence. Therefore, order having been issued against a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction, bad in law, contrary to settled principles of law. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by order dated 20.11.2024 passed in W.P. No. 13145/2024 1 WP-31857-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:161

(SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI) JUDGE (ANURADHA SHUKLA) JUDGE (Madhya Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation (Erstwhile M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Bhopal) Vs. Central Board of Direct Taxes and Others) by which the petition has been allowed and this petition may be disposed of in the same terms. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent has no objection to the submission made by counsel for the petitioner. 4. Accordingly, the petition is disposed of and order dated 20.11.2024 passed in W.P. No.13145/2024 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5. A complete copy of order dated 20.11.2024 passed in W.P. No.13145/2024 be placed in the record of the present case. Shanu

2 WP-31857-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-JBP:161 Digitally signed by SHANU RAIKWAR Date: 2025.01.07 11:22:25 +05'30'

More judgments on Section 148A(d)

All 544 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148A(d) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →