MISHMI TAKIN SPORTSGEAR PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. ITO, 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 found merit in the assessee's primary legal ground to quash the reopening. This was because the reopening was initiated against a non-existent entity, as confirmed by the company being struck off.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal arose from an order of the CIT(A)/NFAC related to assessment year 2019-20, concerning proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act. The reopening was initiated based on an order dated 28.02.2023, due to the assessee company being struck off by the Registrar of Companies on 20.04.2022.
What were the issues?
The primary issue was the validity of the reopening of assessment proceedings initiated against a company that had been struck off and ceased to exist.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show listHide 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.
- PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.308 citing107 Taxmann.com 375 · 2019 · SC · Read judgment
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA
O R D E R
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM:
This assessee’s appeal /2025 for assessment year 2019-20 arises against CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi’s order dated 25.08.2025 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079962862(1), in proceedings u/s 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’.
Heard both the parties. Case file perused.
It emerges during the course of hearing that there arises the first and foremost issue of validity of reopening itself set into motion by the learned precise reason that learned counsel representing the assessee has filed ROC notice/ order dated 20.4.2022 striking off the assessee company under the relevant provision of Companies Act, 2013. This clinching fact has gone unrebutted from the Revenue’s side.
That being the case, the tribunal hereby sees merit in the instant assessee’s first and foremost legal ground to quash reopening itself since initiated against a non-existent entity going by PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC). Ordered accordingly.
All other remaining pleadings between the parties on merits stand rendered academic.
This assessee’s appeal is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 27.11.2025.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Late Jankidevi Nandlal Jaiswal Through… vs ITO Ward-4(4), NagpurNagpur27 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that an assessment order passed in the name of a deceased person without bringing the legal heirs on record is void ab initio. Consequently, revision proceedings under section 263 based on such an inval...
- Ishwar Chand Aggarwal, Faridabad vs Income Tax Officer- Ward 1(3), New Cgo…Delhi31 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act in the name of a dead person is void ab initio. The entire reassessment proceeding is vitiated because the Assessing Officer failed to satisfy the prere...
- M/S. Ashok Leyland Ltd., Chennai vs DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), ChennaiChennai29 Jul 2025Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that notices issued for reopening assessment and the reassessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, despite the AO being aware of the amalgamation, are void ab initio and null in the ey...
- Griffin Marine Travel Private Limited… vs ACIT Circle (1)(1), MumbaiMumbai10 Sept 2024Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that reopening after 4 years without failure on the assessee's part to disclose material facts is invalid. Furthermore, issuing notices to a non-existent entity post-amalgamation renders the reopening i...
- Ampi Finance Limited, Kolkata vs I.T.O., Ward-4(3), KolkataKolkata5 Mar 2026Allowed
Also relies on PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.
The Tribunal held that the AO lacked jurisdiction to make additions not mentioned in the reasons for reopening. It further held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing, amalgamated entity is invali...
More judgments on Section 147
- 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
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Sahoo Supply Agency,Balasore vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And Customs,New DelhiOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S Jyoti Consultants, Agrahat vs. Pr. Commissioner GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Sahoo Supply Agency vs. Central Board Of Indirect Taxes And CustomsOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- Gopal Aromatic PVT. LTD., Cuttack vs. Union Of INDIAOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Nourangi Paints vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
