HIND LEVER CHEMICALS LTD ( SINCE MERGED WITH TATA CHEMICALS LTD),MUMBAI vs. ASST CIT 2(3), MUMBAI

4.1. We find that the brief facts involved with regard to the aforesaid additional ground raised on 17/07/2019 are that regular assessment in the A.Y.2002-03 was completed u/s.143(3) of the Act on 29/03/2005 by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-8, Chandigarh. On the same day, i.e. on 29/03/2005, the assessments for A.Y.2000-01, 2001-02 and 2003-04 were sought to be reopened by the same Additional M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

Commissioner by issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29/03/2005. We find that in the said notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29/03/2005, the fact of amalgamation of Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd (HLCL) with Tata Chemicals Ltd (TCL) was mentioned by the ld. AO. The following chronology of dates together with its events in tabular form as submitted by the ld. Counsel of the assessee would present the facts of the entire case:-

Sr. No. Date Events 1 Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. (HLCL) having permanent account number as AAACH4115Q was subject to the jurisdiction of Assessing Officer in Chandigarh for the purposes of assessment of its income. 28.11.2000 2 HLCL filed its return of income for AY 2000-01 declaring total taxable income of Rs. 12,30,27,000 under the regular provisions of the Act and Rs. 11,16,45,000 as book profits under section 115JA of the Act. 3 01.04.2002 HLCL has been amalgamated with Tata Chemicals Ltd. (TCL) with effect from the said date. 4 14.10.2003 The High Court at Bombay approved of the aforesaid amalgamation. 5 19.05.2004 The aforesaid amalgamation was approved by the Punjab and Haryana High Court. 6 01.06.2004 Relevant filing of the High Court orders along with other documents was made before the Registrar of Companies. 7 09.06.2004 TCL filed letter dated 01.06.2004 with the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-2(1), Chandigarh requesting him to inter alia place the fact relating to amalgamation on record. Along with the said letter the orders passed by the High Court at Bombay and the Punjab and Haryana High Court along with copies of PAN Card of HLCL as well as TCL were filed. This letter forms part of the documents filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal and is annexed as Exhibit-A to this submission for sake of convenience. It assumes significance that this letter is filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal from the assessment records available with them. 8 29.03.2005 The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-II, Chandigarh issued notice under section 148 of the Act in the name of "Hind Lever Chemicals Ltd. C/o. Tata Chemicals Ltd." which was sent to the address of TCL in Mumbai. The Permanent Account Number referred to on the said Notice is that of HLCL i.e. AAACH4115Q. The said notice also acknowledges the fact relating to M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited) amalgamation (see flap A-l of the Case law paper book). Therefore, on 29.03.2005, the Additional Commissioner of Income-tax Range-II, Chandigarh was aware of the fact relating to amalgamation. 9 30.11.2005 Pursuant to aforesaid amalgamation, the Assessing Officer exercising jurisdiction over the assessee was transferred from Chandigarh to Mumbai. Therefore, this is one more reason that the Assessing Officer passing the assessment order was fully aware of the fact relating to amalgamation (see flap A-3 of the case law paper book). 10 10.02.2006 ACIT Circle-2(2), Mumbai passed the assessment order with the name of the assessee referred to as "Hind Lever Chemicals Limited (since amalgamated with Tata Chemicals Ltd.)". The PAN of HLCL has been referred to therein. It has been assessed on income of Rs.23,30,11,000 as per the regular provisions of the Act.

4.2. It was submitted that the assessee could not file revised return in the name of amalgamated entity as the time limit for filing u/s 139(5) of the Act had expired. Per Contra, the ld. DR vehemently argued that in those days, it was only manual filing of returns. Hence the assessee could have very well filed the revised returns for the relevant assessment years under consideration. We find that the provisions of section 139(5) of the Act stipulates the circumstances under which revised return could be filed by an assessee. We find that the present facts of the assessee does not fit into any of the circumstances mentioned in section 139(5) of the Act. Hence we agree with the ld.AR’s argument that assessee was prevented from filing of revised return by operation of law. In any case, we find that the fact of amalgamation has been duly informed by the assessee before the ld. AO who was framing the regular assessment for the Asst Year 2002-03. Despite that 4.3. The aforesaid tabulation would effectively summarise the arguments advanced by the ld. AR also at the time of hearing before us. From the aforesaid tabulation, it could be safely concluded that on the date of M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited) issuance of notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29/03/2005 in the name of HLCL(amalgamating company), the said company had ceased to exist in view of its amalgamation with TCL. Hence, it was the argument of the ld. AR that the initiation of re-assessment proceedings as well as subsequent framing of re-assessment order in the name of non-existent entity is illegal and bad in law. We find lot of force in the said argument advanced by the ld. AR and we also find that similar issue had arose in the group company of the assessee in the case of Tata Chemicals Ltd.,(after merger of Sabras Investment and Trading Company Ltd.,) vs. JCIT Special Range, Mumbai in to 918/Mum/2012, 869 to 872/Mum/2013 for A.Yrs. 1996-97 to 1999-2000 dated 05/09/2019. The operative portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder:-

12. At the outset, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that it has raised additional ground in regard to assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act is bad in law as it is made on a non-existent entity. The learned Counsel for the assessee referred to the additional grounds raised in this year i.e. AY 1999-00. The learned for the assessee stated that this additional grounds raised herein do not require any investigation of additional facts and go to the root of the matter on the legal issue involved. Hence, he requested that the said grounds to be admitted in the interest of substantial justice and for admission of additional ground, the learned Counsel relied on the following decisions: - ―-National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT [229 ITR 383 (SC)] -Jute Corporation of India Ltd. vs. CIT [187 ITR 688 (SC)] -CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] -Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Pruthvi Brokers & Shareholders (348 ITR 336 (Bom)] -Ashok Vardhan Birla Vs. CIT [208 ITR 958 (Bom.)] -Inaroo Vs. CIT (204 ITR 312 (Bom)] -CIT vs. Govindram Bros. P. Ltd (141 ITR 626 (Bom)] M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

-Maruti Suzuki Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del)‖ 13.For this, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that the AO as well as the CIT(A) even in first and in second round framed assessment order and passed appellate orders respectively on non- existent of company i.e. Sabras Investment and Trading Company Limited in this assessment year. The learned Counsel for the assessee first of all took us through the assessment order for AY 1999-00 passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 11.03.2002, wherein on the very heading of the assessment order it is mentioned that since merged with Tata Chemicals Limited, the relevant details are as under: - ―Name & Address of the Assessee: M/s Sabras Investment and Trading Ltd.(since merged with M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd.)‖ PAN/ GIR No. AABCS8618L District/ Ward/ Circle Circle-2(2) Status Company Assessment year 1999-2000 Whether Residence/ resident but not ordinarily resident/ non-resident Resident Method of Accounting Mercantile Previous Year 31.03.1999 Nature of Business Investment Company Date(s) of hearing As per order sheet Date of order 11-03-2002 Section and subsection under which the assessment is made U/s 143(3) of IT Act, 1961‖ 14. The learned Counsel for the assessee then drew our attention to Para 3 of the order of the AO which read as under: - ―3. The assessee company was wholly owned subsidy company of M/s Tata Chemicals Ltd before its merger with holding company w.e.f. 01.04.2000. It was an investment company having investments in shares and securities of M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited) various companies and also earned interest on advances and Inter Corporate Deposits.‖ 15. According to the learned Counsel, the AO was very much aware that this company has merged with Tata Chemicals Limited with effect from 01.04.2000 and despite this fact, the assessment was framed in the name of a non-existent company. 16.The above facts are undisputed and admittedly, assessment orders were framed in this year after the amalgamation and on a non-existent company. In view of the above, the learned Counsel for the assessee stated that this assessment made on a non-existent company is bad in law in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (SC) in civil appeal No. 5409 of 2019 vide order dated 25 July 2019.

M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.‖ 19. Respectfully following the decision of Hon‘ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), we set aside the final assessment order as it is void and ab-initio, having been passed in the name of non-existent company by the AO. We noted that once the assessment framed is bad in law being framed on a non-existent company, the consequent rectification order passed under section 154 of the Act will not survive. Hence, the rectification order passed under section 154 is also quashed. This issue of assessee‘s appeals (in both the appeals i.e. in ITAs No. 918/Mum/2012 & 872/Mum/2013 for AY 1999-2000) assessee is allowed.

4.4. We find in the aforesaid case relied upon herein, the assessment order had been passed in a similar manner like the present one before us where the name of amalgamating company was referred to followed by the fact that the said company had merged with TCL and this Tribunal by following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in 416 ITR 613 had declared the final assessment order as void ab initio for having been passed in the name of non-existent entity. We find that before us, the ld. DR filed detailed written submissions by placing reliance on various decisions by also filing a detailed paper book comprising of various documents through e-mail, all M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited) the factual documents relied upon by the ld. DR and placed on record by him in the paper book does not advance the case of the revenue in as much as the notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued in the name of non- existent entity and re-assessment framed in the name of non-existent entity. Merely, because the assessee had participated in the said re- assessment proceedings after pointing out the actual fact of amalgamation before erstwhile Assessing Officer, the illegal assessment framed by a non-jurisdictional AO cannot be sustainable in the eyes of law. With regard to decisions relied upon by the ld. DR, we find that all those decisions were already considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in 416 ITR 613 and in any case, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would bind us as it becomes the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution. The relevant operative portion of the facts as well as the finding given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Case are as under:-

―10. On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of Suzuki Powertrain India Limited‖ (amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Limited). The draft assessment order sought to increase the total income of the assessee by Rs. 78.97 crores in accordance with the order of the TPO in order to ensure that the international transactions with regard to the payment of royalty to the Associated Enterprises is at Arm‘s Length. 11 to 14. …………………… 15. The final assessment order was passed on 31 October 2016 in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL and that the final assessment order which was also issued in the name of a non-existent entity, would be invalid. 16. ……………… 17. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that:

M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

(i) The High Court was not justified in quashing the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) only on the ground that the assessment was framed in the name of the amalgamating company, which was not in existence, ignoring the fact that the names of both the amalgamated company and the amalgamating company were mentioned in the assessment order; (ii) to (viii) …………….. (ix) Consequently, in the alternative, in view of the order passed by this Court on 6 April 2018 in Skylight Hospitality LLP on the one hand and the order dated 16 July 2018 in the case of the present assessee for AY 2011-12 and the earlier order dated 2 November 2017 in CIT, New Delhi v Spice Enfotainment Ltd.15 (―Spice Enfotainment Ltd‖), there appears to be a direct conflict of views on the principle whether a notice issued to a non-existent company would suffer from a jurisdictional error or whether it is a mere defect or mistake which would be governed by Section 292B. 18. ………….

not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsbury's Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539). Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending of one by the other, both amount to amalgamation. When two companies are merged and are so joined, as to form a third company or one is absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity.‖ (iv) Fourthly, upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed; (v) Fifthly, a notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 26 September 2013 to the amalgamating company, SPIL, which was followed by a notice to it under Section 142(1); (vi) Sixthly, prior to the date on which the jurisdictional notice under Section 143 (2) was issued, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved on 29 January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact of amalgamation. In the above conspectus of the facts, the initiation of assessment proceedings against an entity which had ceased to exist was void ab initio.

place of the said „dead person‟. When notice under Section 143 (2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings an assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.

company due to the amalgamation order, would render the assessment a nullity.

M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

―40…Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is, where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply. But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution. The reasons assigned by this Court in its order expressing its adjudication (expressly or by necessary implication) on point of fact or law shall take away the jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal or authority to express any opinion in conflict with or in departure from the view taken by this Court because permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court.However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger.‖

M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

No. 7409 of 2018 34 ―Sky Light Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax : (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) 35 ―LLP Act 2008‖ upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Court held ―substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record‖ to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake. The tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PAN number of the LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents. The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in this background that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview of Section 292B for the following reasons: ―18…There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11.04.2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was replied and dealt with by them. The fact that notice was addressed to M/s. Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.‖ 28. The decision in Spice Entertainment was distinguished with the following observations: ―19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of Assessment Order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal.‖

of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in: (i) Rajender Kumar Sehgal; (ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel; and (iii) Alamelu Veerappan. 30 . There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in Spice Enfotainment (dated 2 November 2017)36 and in Skylight Hospitality LLP (dated 6 April 201837). 31 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292B. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected 36 Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 and connected cases 37 Special Leave Petition No. 7409 of 2018 under Section 292B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows: ―292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.‖ M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death. Section 170 provides as follows: ―170. (1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession,— (a) the predecessor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession; (b) the successor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the assessment of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession and of the previous year preceding that year shall be made on the successor in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor, and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. (3) When any sum payable under this section in respect of the income of such business or profession for the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession or for the previous year preceding that year, assesseed on the predecessor, cannot be recovered from him, the [Assessing] Officer shall record a finding to that effect and the sum payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and recoverable from the successor and the successor shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid. (4) Where any business or profession carried on by a Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and simultaneously with the succession or after the succession there has been a partition of the joint family property between the members or groups of members, the tax due in respect of the income of the business or profession succeeded to, up to the date of succession, shall be assesseed and recovered in the manner provided in section 171, but without prejudice to the provisions of this section. Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, ―income‖ includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited) manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession‖ Now, in the present case, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that SPIL ceased to be an eligible assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 144C read with clause (b) of sub section 15. Moreover, it has been urged that in consequence, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 was beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4). For the purposes of the present proceeding, we do not consider it necessary to delve into that aspect of the matter having regard to the reasons which have weighed us in the earlier part of this judgment.

revenue’s Counsel before the Hon’ble Supreme Court urged that since the assessment order has been passed referring to both the names, the said order could not be recorded as invalid. Similar arguments were advanced by the ld. DR before us also. This aspect has already been considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court while rendering its decision in Maruti Suzuki Ltd supra.

4.6. We also find that the ld. DR had placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT reported in 405 ITR 296 which according to the ld. DR was subsequently approved by the Hon’ble Apex Court by way of dismissal of Special Leave Petition. We find that this judgment also was considered by the Hon’ble Apex Court while rendering its decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. referred to supra wherein it had been duly mentioned that the conclusion reached in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP was based on its peculiar facts and hence, not applicable. In fact, the Hon’ble Apex Court also proceeded to adjudicate the facts of Sky Light Hospitality LLP by stating that in that case the company had been converted into Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) after which a notice u/s.148 of the Act had been issued in the name of erstwhile company. The initiation of re-assessment proceedings was challenged by way of writ petition before the High Court. The peculiar facts in that case were that the tax evasion report which formed the basis in formation of belief with respect to escapement of income, the reasons recorded before the reopening the assessment and the decision given by the Pr. Commissioner u/s.151 of the Act referred to LLP and not the erstwhile company. Further, in various documents, the Permanent Account Number of LLP was mentioned. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, the Court held the reference to Company in the 148 notice as a clerical error.

M/s. Tata Chemicals (after merger Hind Lever Chemicals Limited)

Accordingly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., had distinguished the decision of Sky Light Hospitality referred to supra. It is not in dispute that in the instant case before us, the notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29/03/2005 was issued in the name of non-existent entity and re-assessment was also framed in the name of non-existent entity.

4.7. In view of the aforesaid observations and on the facts and circumstances of the instant case and the judicial precedents relied upon hereinabove, we hold that notice u/s.148 of the Act dated 29/03/2005 was issued in the name of HLCL (non-existent entity) and accordingly, reassessment order framed thereon deserves to be quashed as void ab initio. Accordingly, additional ground raised by the assessee on 17/07/2019 that re-assessment has been framed in the name of non- existent entity is hereby allowed.

Order pronounced on 21/10/2020 by way of proper mentioning in the notice board.