TIN TIME CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD vs. ADDITIOINAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX AND ORS

PDF · subscribers
WP/7415/2021HC BombayHCBM01037928202111 January 2022Author: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE K.R. SHRIRAM,HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. J. JAMADAR2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the impugned order dated September 28, 2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12, was passed without jurisdiction. The court found merit in the petitioner's submission that the order was issued against Agarsen Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., which was a non-existent entity due to its amalgamation with Tin Time Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. as approved by the National Company Law Tribunal on March 28, 2018. Citing its own decision in Teleperformance Global Services (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and other judicial pronouncements, the court concluded that an order passed against a non-existent entity is void ab initio. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the impugned order was quashed and set aside. All rights and contentions of the parties were kept open.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, Tin Time Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Income Tax Department. The impugned order, dated September 28, 2021, was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12. The petitioner contended that the order was passed without jurisdiction because it was issued against a non-existent entity, Agarsen Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. This entity had amalgamated with Tin Time Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to an order of the National Company Law Tribunal dated March 28, 2018, approving the scheme of amalgamation. The respondents were the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer and others.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the impugned order dated September 28, 2021, passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment year 2011-12, is without jurisdiction. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that the order was passed against a non-existent entity, Agarsen Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., which had amalgamated with the petitioner, Tin Time Consultancy Pvt. Ltd., by virtue of a National Company Law Tribunal order dated March 28, 2018. Therefore, the order was without jurisdiction. The petitioner relied on the High Court's decision in Teleperformance Global Services (P) Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 25(1), New Delhi, and various other court decisions. Revenue's Contentions: The judgment does not record any specific contentions made by the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 144B,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

1/2 919-WP-7415-2021.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 7415 OF 2021 Tin Time Consultancy Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner V/s. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer and Ors. …Respondents ---- Mr. Madhur Agarwal a/w Mr. Fenil Bhatta and Mr. Upendra Lokegaonkar i/b Mint and Confreres for Petitioner. Mr. Sham V. Walve for Respondents. ---- CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM & N. J. JAMADAR, JJ.

DATED : 11th JANUARY, 2022 P.C. :

1.

We heard Mr. Agarwal and Mr. Walve and also considered the petition and the reply. We are satisfied with Mr. Agarwal’s submission that terms of prayer clause – (a) which reads as under : 1 [2021] 435 ITR 725 (Bombay) Purti Parab PURTI PRASAD PARAB PURTI PRASAD PARAB Date: 2022.01.13 11:59:53 +0530

2/2 919-WP-7415-2021.doc (a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other writ order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India calling for the records of the case leading to the and the passing of the impugned order (Exhibit – M) dated September 28, 2021 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 and after going through the same and examining the question of legality thereof quash, cancel and set aside the impugned order (Exhibit – M) dated September 28, 2021 passed under Section 143(3) read with section 254 and 144B of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12. 2. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open.

3.

Petition disposed. (N. J. JAMADAR, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.) Purti Parab

More judgments on Section 144B

All 10,521 judgments and leading authorities on Section 144B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →