DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-4(3), KOLKATA, KOLKATA vs. ISHANA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED, KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1775/KOL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 December 2025AY 2016-17Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)10 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the order of the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal noted that the reasons recorded for reopening and the notice issued under Section 148 were in the name of Energy Commodities Private Limited. However, at the time of recording reasons and issuing the notice, M/s Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. no longer existed as it had merged with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd. The AO himself acknowledged this merger in the reasons recorded. Once a company merges, it ceases to exist as a separate legal entity. Therefore, the AO lacked the jurisdiction to issue a notice or pass an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order quashing the assessment orders, relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. The appeals filed by the revenue were dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed two appeals against the orders of the CIT(Appeals) for Assessment Years 2015-2016 and 2016-2017. The appeals were filed belatedly by 5 days, and the delay was condoned. The Revenue's primary contention was that the assessee, Energy Commodities Private Limited (now merged with Ishana Projects Private Limited), was involved in the sale of bogus investments. A search operation was conducted on the 'Kanodia Group' on 30.11.2022, which also covered Energy Commodities Private Limited. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice under Section 148 on 10.01.2024, proposing to reassess income based on information suggesting escaped assessment due to the sale of bogus investments. The AO completed the assessment under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147, treating the sale of bogus investments as unexplained income. The CIT(Appeals) deleted the additions and quashed the assessment order on technical grounds, specifically that the assessee company had merged with Ishana Projects Private Limited.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Assessing Officer had the jurisdiction to issue a notice under Section 148 and complete the assessment in the case of Energy Commodities Private Limited, which had already merged with Ishana Projects Private Limited prior to the issuance of the notice and recording of reasons? Assessee's Contention: The assessee argued that Energy Commodities Private Limited amalgamated with Ishana Projects Private Limited on 19.07.2022, which was intimated to the authorities. Since the company ceased to exist post-merger, the AO could not issue a notice in its name. The CIT(A)'s decision to quash the assessment order based on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd. was correct and should be upheld. Revenue's Contention: The Revenue contended that the CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merits and should not have quashed the assessment order on technical grounds. They supported the AO's order treating the bogus investment sale as unexplained income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 132,Section 133A,Section 131,Section 127,Section 68,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, KOLKATA

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHANAND

For Respondent: Shri Subrata Aich, JCIT-Sr.DR

O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the revenue against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(Appeals), Kolkata-27, both dated 15.04.2025 for the assessment years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017.

2.

Both appeals of the revenue are filed belatedly by 05 days each. In this regard, the revenue has filed affidavit in both the appeals stating therein sufficient reasons for condonation of delay. Considering facts and circumstances of the case and the reasons stated in the affidavit, we condone the delay of 05 days each in both the appeals of the revenue and both the appeals are admitted for hearing.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld. Sr.DR that the assessee being Energy Commodity Private Limited was involved in sale of bogus investments. It was submission that consequently reopening had been done by issuance of notice 148 of the Act on 10/01/2024 and the reasons were recorded and x x x x x x It was the submission that the assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) of the Act r.w.s.147 of the Act on 29/03/2024 where the bogus investment sold was treated as unexplained income of the assessee and brought to tax. It was the submission that on appeal, Ld.CIT(A) on the technical ground that the assessee had merged with M/s. Ishana Projects Private Limited, deleted the additions and quashed the assessment order. It was submission that the Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the issues on merits and he should not have quashed the assessment order. He vehemently supported the order of the AO.

6.

In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee Energy Commodities Private Limited amalgamated with M/s Ishana Projects Private Limited by an order dated 19/07/2022. It was the submission that this was intimated to the AO as also the PCIT vide communication dated 27/09/2022. It was the submission that the reasons recoded for reopening in para 2 also specifically brings out the fact that the assessee Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd has merged with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd vide NCLT order dated 19/07/2022. It was submission that once the merger takes place, obviously the company Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd would no more exist. It was the submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) quashing the assessment order in the case of Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki Ltd, reported in 107 taxmann.com 375 was right. It was submission that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is liable to be upheld.

1.

We have considered the rival submission. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the reasons recorded has been issued in the case Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The PAN Number referred to in the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act is also that of Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The fact remains that the when the said reasons were recorded and when the notice was issued, M/s Energy Commodities Pvt. Ltd. did not exist, insofar as, it had already merged with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd. Once it is recognized by the AO that M/s Energy Commodities Pvt Ltd. has already been merged/amalgamated with M/s Ishana Projects Pvt. Ltd and this has also categorically mentioned in the reasons recorded. It was no more available with the AO to issue a notice in the case of an amalgamated company as the said company was no more exist. This being so, we find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in quashing the assessment orders passed in the case of Energy Commodity Pvt. Ltd by relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, referred to supra. In these circumstances the order of the CIT(A) in both the appeals for both the assessment years under consideration stand upheld and both appeals filed by the revenue stand dismissed.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →