COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI -I vs. ADVANCE PROJECT PVT LTD (IN THE MATTER OF AMALGAMATED CO.

PDF · subscribers
ITA/372/2016HC DelhiDLHC01049910201610 February 2017Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI2 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the High Court hold?

The Tribunal held that the reassessment notice was invalid as it was served on a non-existent entity. Furthermore, even if the notice were considered valid, the assessment could not be framed without a preceding notice under Section 143(2).

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer issued a reassessment notice to a company that had already been amalgamated with another entity. The amalgamation scheme was approved by the High Court just a day before the notice was issued. The AO proceeded with the reassessment without issuing a notice under Section 143(2).

What were the issues?

Whether a reassessment notice issued to a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is valid. Whether an assessment can be framed under Section 147/148 without a notice under Section 143(2).

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(2)

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.

$~7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 372/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI –I ..... Appellant Through: Mr. P. Roychaudhury, Adv. versus ADVANCE INDIA PROJECTS LTD (IN THE MATTER OF AMALGAMATED CO. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Salil Aggarwal and Mr. Ravi Pratap Mau, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI O R D E R % 10.02.2017 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the ITAT which allowed the assessee’s appeal on two grounds: (i) that the re- assessment notice was served upon a company which had ceased to be in existence; (ii) that before framing of re-assessment, no notice had been issued under Section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The facts necessary for the purposes of this case are that the assessee at the relevant point of time was M/s Maggpie Projects Ltd. Concededly that assessee was amalgamated with the appellant, in this case i.e. M/s Advance India Projects Ltd. (in short the transferee company). For Assessment Year (AY) 2005-06, the concerned Assessing Officer (AO) issued a notice on 30.03.2012, to the original assessee. Just a day before that i.e. on 29.03.2012 this Court had approved an amalgamation scheme whereby the original assessee ITA 372/2016 Page 1 of 2

merged and amalgamated with the transferee company. The AO nevertheless proceeded to frame assessment under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax, 1961. The assessee, which was unsuccessful before the Appellate Commissioner, urged that the notice of the re- assessment was invalid because it was drawn on a non-existent entity and also that in the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) the assessment could not have been validly framed. Even if this Court is to assume that the re-assessment notice were valid as is urged by the Revenue, nevertheless on the second ground the ITAT’s order does not call for interference relying upon the judgment of this Court in Alpine Electronic Asia Pte. Ltd. vs DIT (2012)- 18 Taxman.com 246 (Del). In these circumstances, no question of law arises. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J NAJMI WAZIRI, J FEBRUARY 10, 2017/kk ITA 372/2016 Page 2 of 2

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →