INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(3) (1), MUMBAI vs. M/S. SILVERLINE TRADING COMPANY, MUMBAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existent company is bad in law. The CIT(A) was correct in allowing the assessee's appeal on this ground.
What were the facts?
The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment of a non-existent company for AY 2011-12, issuing a notice under Section 148. The assessee, a dissolved company, responded by filing a nil return. The AO made an addition of ₹1,62,83,840/- as unexplained money due to cash and cheque deposits in a bank account, passing an order under Section 144 read with sections 144(3) and 147.
What were the issues?
Whether a notice issued under Section 148 to a non-existent company is legally valid and curable as a procedural defect.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM
This appeal is filed by Income Tax Officer, ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] for A.Y. 2011- 12 dated 1st November, 2021, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 147 read with section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act), by ITO Ward, 2(3)(2), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) was allowed, therefore the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal raising following grounds of appeal:-
2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was legally correct in ignoring the ratio laid down by the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax. Circle-28(1), New Delhi 12 ("Skylight Hospitality LLP") which was confirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 06/04/2018 wherein it was held that the defect in recording the name of a non-existent company in a notice under Section 148 was a procedural defect or mistake curable under Section 292B, since no prejudice was caused to the assessee."
The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee is a domestic company engaged in the business of ferrous and non ferrous metal. Assessee has not filed its return of income for A.Y. 2011-12. Notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued on 27th March, 2015. It was responded by filing return of income on 22nd January, 2016 at ₹ nil. The case of the assessee was reopened as assessee is non filer and the information was available that it has entered into a cash transaction exceeding ₹ 10 lacs. During the course of assessment proceedings, it was found that assessee is having a bank account in Sadar Bazaar Branch of ICCI Bank, whereas it disclosed only one bank account with
Aggrieved with that assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A) and stated that learned Assessing Officer despite having knowledge that assessee is a non existing company passed an assessment order in the name of the company. It was stated before the learned CIT (A) that appellant is a dissolved and non existing company which was intimated to the learned Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15th December, 2015 along with certificate of Registrar of Companies dated 18th March, 2011. It was also stated that co-ordinate Bench in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 2007-08, which was subjected to 263 proceedings has categorically held that company is not in existence on the date of order passed under Section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Act and
The learned Departmental Representative vehemently supported that the order of the learned Assessing Officer is correctly passed in the name of the assessee company.
Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and therefore, the appeal is decided on the merits of the case as per information available on record.
We have carefully considered the contentions of the learned Departmental Representative. However, we note the fact that company has already been dissolved and is not in existence since 18th March, 2011. The copy of the registrar of companies certificate was also submitted before the learned Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15th December, 2015. Despite this, the notice under Section 27th March, 2015 culminated into the assessment order passed in case of a non existing company i.e. ‘Silver Line Trading Pvt. Limited’. The issue has already been decided in assessee’s own case by the ITAT which was followed by the learned CIT (A). This issue is also covered by the
In the result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07. 2022.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Dwaraka Jewellers, Bhubaneswar vs. Superintendent, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S N D Waddar And Co vs. Sri Gaurav GuptaKarnataka · 30 Oct 2026
- Kanwar Enterprises Private Limited vs. The Joint Commissioner - State TaxTelangana · 30 Oct 2026