Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's assessment was reopened under Section 147, and a notice under Section 148 was issued on 31/03/2021. The assessee objected, arguing the notice was invalid as the company's name had been struck off on 23/06/2018, making it a non-existent entity. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal as non-maintainable on the ground that it was filed by a non-est company.
Held
The Tribunal held that both the notice under Section 148 and the subsequent assessment order were bad in law, as they were issued against a company whose name had been struck off and was, therefore, a non-existent entity at the time of issuance. Consequently, the impugned assessment order was annulled.
Key Issues
Whether a reassessment notice and order issued to a non-existent company are valid, and whether an appeal filed by such a company is maintainable.
Sections Cited
147, 148, 143(1), 246A, 250, 234A, 234B
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “F” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE
O R D E R
PER NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, AM:
This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 29/03/2025 by NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter “the ld. CIT(A)”] pertaining to AY 2014-15.
The grievance of the assessee reads as under:- “1. GROUND NO. 1: MAINTAINABILITY OF APPEAL The CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in holding that the appeal filed by the appellant u/s. 246A was not maintainable in law ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Shri Scrips (P.) Ltd., 2019 262 Taxmann 356 which was specifically brought to his attention in writing.
2. GROUND NO. 2: PASSING OF AN EX-PARTE ORDER The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in passing an ex-parte order u/s. 250 ignoring the written submissions made on maintaining of the appeal. Your appellant prays that the ex-parte order be quashed.
3. GROUND NO. 3: DENIAL OF OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING & GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE 2 The Id. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not providing opportunity of hearing inspite of written request to do so and further erred in law and on facts in violating the provisions of natural justice. Your appellant prays that such an order of the CIT(A) be quashed.
4. GROUND NO. 4: NON ADJUDICATION OF ALL GROUNDS IN APPEAL The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and in facts in not adjudicating all the grounds raised before him in appeal (1 to 8) as detailed below being:
(i) Serving a notice and passing an order on a non-existing company. (ii) Passing of reassessment order that was bad in law. (iii) The Id. A.O. erred in making an addition of Rs. 13,13,77,096/- to the income of the company which was neither received nor receivable. (iv) Disallowance of Rs. 10,17,22,904 on loss of valuable asset. (v) A.O. failure in ignoring the submissions and passing an ex-parte order. (vi) Failure of A.O. to not dispose off objection to reopening and violation of natural justice by A.O. (vii) Upholding of reopening and reassessment order (viii) Levy of interest u/s. 234A of Rs. 4,46,442 and u/s. 234B of Rs. 4,28,58,432/-.”
Representatives were heard at length. Case records carefully perused. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable.
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/11/2014. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28/03/2016 which was also processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25/04/2016.
The assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording reasons and obtaining approval of the competent authority vide notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee raised objections to the notice u/s 148 of the Act as the same was issued on the company which was 3