M/S. DOLF LEASING LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that a notice issued to a non-existent entity is invalid and does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer. Consequently, the assessment made based on such a notice is quashed.
What were the facts?
The assessee, M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd, is challenging a notice issued under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. This notice was issued on March 30, 2014, in the name of M/s S. N. Dotcom Private Limited, which had already been amalgamated with another company in 2012 and was therefore non-existent.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of a Section 148 notice issued in the name of a company that had ceased to exist due to amalgamation. The secondary issue concerned the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with reassessment.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,
Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2009-10] M/s Dolf Leasing Ltd Vs. The I.T.O [Amalgamated Company] Ward 9(1) For M/s S.N. Dotcom Pvt Ltd New Delhi [Amalgamating Company Shop No. 325, 3rd Floor AGarwal Plaza, Sector 14 Rohini, New Delhi PAN : AJJPA 4442 Q [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 05.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2017 Assessee by : Shri Deepak Ostwal Shri Rishab Ostwal Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)-22, New Delhi vide order dated 18.01.2017 for assessment year 2009-10.
The assessee has raised as many as nine grounds of appeal. However, the assessee has mainly agitated the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] which is on the non existing company i.e. the assessee company, which has already wound up.
Facts, in brief, are that M/s S. N. Dotcom Private Limited was amalgamated with M/s Suave Technologies (P) Limited vide order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court dated 17th August, 2012 w.e.f. 01.04.2011. M/s Suave Technologies (P) Limited was later amalgamated with M/s Dolf Leasing Limited, i.e. the assessee, as per the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 15 July, 2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2014. Therefore, the appeal has been filed by M/s Dolt Leasing Limited, the appellant, who has challenged the validity of notice u/s 148 as it was issued in the name of M/s S. N. Dotcom Private Limited on 30th March, 2014 when the said company was not in existence. The appellant has challenged the addition on merits as well.
As far as merits of the addition are concerned, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the evidence of accommodation entries was found/seized during the search and the appellant did not comply with the statutory notices issued nor did it furnish any information or evidence to controvert, the finding of AO at the appellate stage. The ld. CIT(A) further observed that the appellant cannot take advantage of its own statutory lapse, besides the finding that the notice u/s 148 is deemed to have been issued in the name of M/s Suave Technologies (P) Limited in view of Section. 292B (for the reason that the amalgamated company steps into the shoes of amalgamating company and no evidence of application for cancellation of PAN and intimation of amalgamation to AO has been furnished) the technical grounds of appeal are also liable to be dismissed. Accordingly the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
I have heard both the sides and perused the relevant material on record. The issue before us is as to whether the notice issued in the name of M/s S. N. Dotcom Private Limited on 30.03.2014 if a valid notice issued in the name of M/s Dolf Leasing Company Limited or not. The answer is quite evident, which is negative and no notice had been issued on M/s Dolf Leasing Company Limited but the same had been issued in the name of M/s S. N. Dotcom Private Limited, which, in fact, had merged on 17.08.2012 with M/s Sauve Technologies [P] Ltd. Therefore, in such circumstances, and facts of the case, notice to a non existing person is no notice and the Assessing Officer does not acquire jurisdiction to assess or reassess u/s 147/148 of the Act. In that view of the matter, the notice so issued is bad in law and the assessment so made is directed to be quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.10.2017.
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. Mehra Mac Industries Private Limited vs. The Deputy State Tax OfficerTelangana · 30 Oct 2026
- Santosh Das And Anr. vs. Union Of INDIACalcutta · 30 Oct 2026
- M/S Rama Krishna Industries vs. State Of Hp And OthersHimachal Pradesh · 30 Oct 2026
- Smt Usha W/O Shri Tarun vs. Union Of INDIARajasthan · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maruti Nandan Minetech Private Limited vs. The Joint CommissionerRajasthan · 29 Oct 2026