M/S AARON LAND DEVELOPERS PRIVATE LIMITED vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

PDF · subscribers
CW/1316/2024HC RajasthanRJHC02006281202409 May 2024Bench: PANKAJ BHANDARI,SHUBHA MEHTA2 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court held that the entire proceedings initiated by the Department were against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, and no notices had been served on the petitioner, M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited. The Court found that proceedings initiated by the Department against a non-existing entity, in relation to the petitioner, could not be sustained in law. Consequently, the writ petition was allowed, and the entire proceedings initiated by the respondent qua the petitioner were quashed. The ratio decidendi is that assessment proceedings initiated without proper service of notice on the actual assessee are void ab initio and cannot be sustained.

What were the facts?

The petitioner, M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited, filed a writ petition challenging a corrigendum dated December 15, 2023, issued under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. This corrigendum imposed a tax demand on the petitioner. The petitioner also challenged an assessment order dated May 24, 2023, which was passed against a different entity, M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, despite notices being served at the petitioner's correct address. The petitioner contended that it was never served with any notice and that the proceedings were initiated against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, which is a distinct entity with a different registered office. The respondent did not dispute that notices were served on M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited and not on the petitioner.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the assessment order and corrigendum issued by the respondent are valid and legally sustainable against the petitioner, M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited, when the petitioner claims no notice was served on it and the proceedings were initiated against a different entity, M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, turning on the principles of natural justice and proper service of notice under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Assessee's Contentions: The petitioner argued that it was never served with any notice. The entire proceedings were initiated against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, a separate entity. The corrigendum, which imposed the demand on the petitioner, was therefore illegal. The petitioner relied on the fact that the notices were served on M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited and not on M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited. Revenue's Contentions: The respondent, through its counsel, did not dispute the petitioner's assertion that notices were served on M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited and not on the petitioner, M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

[2024:RJ-JP:22083-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1316/2024 M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited, Having Its Registered Office At-26, Laxmi Comples, M.i. Road, Jaipur -302001 Through Its Director Sh. Harvinder Pal Singh Gill. ----Petitioner Versus Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(4), Jaipur, New Central Revenue Building, Bhagwan Dass Road, Jaipur. ----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Jhanwar, Sr. Adv., assisted by Mr. Jaideep Malik, Mr. Palash Gupta & Mr. Rabat Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi with Mr. N.S. Bhati & Mr. Aditya Khandelwal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 09/05/2024 1. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition inter-alia challenging the corrigendum dated 15.12.2023 issued under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act,1961, whereby the tax demand created in the name of another entity has been imposed upon the petitioner. 2. Petitioner has also challenged the illegal assessment order dated 24.05.2023 passed by the respondent created in the name of another entity after serving notice at the correct address which was not pertaining to the petitioner. 3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner i.e., M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited was never served with any notice. The entire proceedings were

[2024:RJ-JP:22083-DB] (2 of 2) [CW-1316/2024] initiated against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited-21/88 Kaveri Path, Mansarovar, Jaipur, 302020, whereas the petitioner- company has its registered office at 26, Laxmi Complex, M.I. Road, Jaipur. 4. It is contended that after issuing notice to M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited and even when the notices were not served, the authorities proceeded to pass orders against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited. Thereafter, a corrigendum was issued and instead of M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited, the address and the name of the petitioner-company alongwith PAN number was mentioned. 5. Mr. Anuroop Singhi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not disputed the fact that the notices were served on M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited and were not served on petitioner-M/s Aaron Land Developers Private Limited. 6. We have considered the contentions. 7. The entire proceedings initiated by the Department was against M/s Oron Land Developers Private Limited. No notices have been served on the petitioner. The entire proceedings initiated by the Department being against a non-existing entity cannot be sustained in law. Thus, the writ petition deserves to be and is, accordingly, allowed. 8. The entire proceedings initiated by the respondent qua the petitioner stands quashed. (SHUBHA MEHTA),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J Daksh/37

More judgments on Section 292B

All 782 judgments and leading authorities on Section 292B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →