Case Law Details
Bit-Byte Investment Services Pvt. Ltd Vs DCIT (Delhi High Court)
Present writ petition has been filed challenging the show cause notice dated 12th March, 2022 issued under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’] as well as the order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 30th March, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order and notices are void ab-initio as they have been issued in the name of “M/s Leasemen Fin-invest India Ltd.” a non-existent entity which was merged with the Petitioner with the effective date being 01st April, 2015 vide order dated 12th July, 2018 passed by the NCLT. In support of his submission, he relies upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC).
He states that even on the Income Tax Portal, the PAN of the nonexistent transferor company was merged with the PAN of the transferee company i.e. the Petitioner. He further states that the case of the Petitioner for the Assessment Year 2018-19 was selected for complete scrutiny and one of the issues that was examined was “amalgamation or demerger”. He states that after a detailed examination and after considering the replies of the Petitioner, an assessment order dated 22nd February, 2021 was passed under Section 143(3) read with Section 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act without making any additions.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned notice dated 12th March, 2022 was issued to “M/s Leasemen Fin-invest India Ltd.” under Section 148A(b) of the Act seeking to initiate re-assessment proceedings on the ground that the assessee had received some payments on which tax had been deducted but the same had not been accounted for as no return of income had been filed by the assessee. He states that the Petitioner in its reply dated 25th March, 2022 to the show cause notice informed the Respondents that the re-assessment proceedings were sought to be initiated against a non-existent company as it had amalgamated with the Petitioner and the income of the assessee had already been accounted for in the books of accounts of the Petitioner. He further states that the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act was passed by the Respondents stating that no response has been filed by the assessee.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
