FLIGHTPATH AVIATION INSTITUTE PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O., WARD - 6(4),, KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the assessee company was struck off from the Registrar of Companies on 29/08/2016. The notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act was issued on 29/03/2017, after the company had been struck off. The Tribunal found the notice to be invalid and consequently quashed it, along with the consequential assessment order.
What were the facts?
The assessee company's appeal was filed with a delay of 706 days. The company was struck off the Registrar of Companies w.e.f. 29.08.2016 due to the company being unable to operate its business. The directors, father (91 years old and bedridden) and son (suffering from depression), were unable to manage the company's affairs. A notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 29/03/2017 to the company, which had already been struck off.
What were the issues?
Whether the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is valid when it is served on a company that has already been struck off the Register of Companies.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH KOLKATA
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN
O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 13.06.2023, passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2010-2011.
The appeal of the assessee is delayed by 706 days. It was the submission that the delay was on account of the fact that the assessee company has been stuck off from the Registrar of Companies w.e.f.29.08.2016 and the company consists of two directors, being father and son. Father is 91 years of old and bedridden and the son is suffering from depression. It was the submission that the only issue is in the appeal was against the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act on 29/03/2017. The notice had been issued on the stuck off company. It was submission that the this was also brought to the attention of the AO vide letter dated 06/10/2017 which reads as follows:-
It was also submission that this was again reiterated in the letter of the assessee to the AO on 16/12/2017. It was submission that as the notice has been issued on a stuck off company, the notice is liable to be quashed.
1. In reply, the Ld.Sr.DR vehemently supported order of the AO and CIT(A). 5. I have considered the rival submissions. As the reasons given for the delay in filing of the appeal are found reasonable, the delay is condoned and the appeal disposed off on merits. 6. A perusal of the facts in the present case clearly shows that the Registrar of Companies has stuck off the assessee company vide letter dated 29/08/2016, which reads as follows:- on 06/10/2017, when the assessment proceedings had been initiated. This being so, as is it noticed that the notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued on stuck off company. The notice is found to be invalid and consequently quashed. In consequence thereof, the consequential assessment order also stands quashed.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 13/01/2026.
1. (जाजज माथन) (GEORGE MATHAN) न्यानयक सदस्य / JUDICIAL MEMBER कोलकाता Kolkata; ददनाांक Dated 13/01/2026 Prakash Kumar Mishra, Sr.P.S. आदेश की प्रनतललपप अग्रेपर्त/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथी / The Appellant- 2. प्रत्यथी / The Respondent- आयकर आयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A), 3. 4. आयकर आयुक्त / CIT 5. विभागीय प्रविविवि, आयकर अपीलीय अविकरण, कोलकाता / DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. गार्ज फाईल / Guard file. आदेशािुसार/ BY ORDER, सत्यापपत प्रयत //True Copy// (Assistant Registrar) Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata
Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on 13.01.26 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 13.01.26 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second JM/AM member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the OS 9. Date on which file goes to the AR 10. Date of dispatch of Order.
More judgments on Section 148
- 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
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S New Sana Brick Field vs. Union Of INDIA And 4 OthersAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Vinay Singh vs. Union Of INDIAAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Aaradhyam Infrabuilders PVT LTD vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026