IYOGI PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3254/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI AMITABH SHUKLA (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order was unsustainable in law because it was framed against a company that was struck off and thus a non-existent entity. There was no material to show that the assessee was ever served with any reopening notice.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Iyogi Private Limited, filed an appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against an order involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act. The key issue was the validity of the assessment order, as the assessee company had been struck off on August 8, 2018, prior to the assessment dated December 29, 2019.

What were the issues?

Validity of assessment order passed against a struck-off company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

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, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

For Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Hearing: 22.01.2026Pronounced: 22.01.2026

ORDER

PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM

1.

This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074768952(1), dated 20.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It transpires during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost legal issue of validity of the impugned assessment dated 29.12.2019 framed in the assessee’s case. This is for the precise reason that going by the CIT(A)’s detailed discussion in para 6.2 at page 17, the assessee/appellant; a company, stood struck off on 08.08.2018. Faced with this situation, the Revenue vehemently argues that it was the assessee’s onus to inform the assessing authority, who was compelled to frame best judgment assessment in issue on 29.12.2019 under section 144 of the Act. We make it clear that there is no iota of material in the case records that the assessee had ever been served any reopening notice even going by the assessment discussion itself. We thus quote the PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) to conclude that the impugned assessment framed in the assessee’s case, a struck off company, i.e. a non-existent entity is not sustainable in law. Quashed accordingly. All other pleadings between the parties stand rendered academic. 4. This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd January, 2026

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →