Bazarclick Services Private Limited Vs ITO (Karnataka High Court)
Section 148 Knocked on a Non-Existent Company: Its Subsequent Revival Could Neither Resurrect the Dead Notice nor Cross Section 149’s ₹50 Lakh Threshold
Relevant facts
In Bazarclick Services Private Limited v. Income Tax Officer, decided on 8 July 2026, the Karnataka High Court examined the validity of reassessment proceedings initiated against a company that had already been struck off from the Register of Companies when the notice u/s 148 was issued.
The dispute related to AY 2016–17. Bazarclick Services Private Limited had been struck off by the Registrar of Companies in 2017. Despite the company having ceased to exist in the eyes of law, the Income Tax Department obtained sanction dated 26 April 2021 u/s 151 & thereafter issued a reassessment notice dated 14 June 2021 u/s 148.
Recognising that the company stood struck off, the AO subsequently approached the National Company Law Tribunal seeking restoration of its name to facilitate completion of the income-tax proceedings. The NCLT allowed the Department’s application by order dated 22 March 2022, resulting in revival of the company.
However, after revival, the AO did not issue a fresh notice u/s 148. Instead, the Department continued the reassessment on the basis of the original notice dated 14 June 2021, which had been issued when the company was legally non-existent. This ultimately culminated in an assessment order dated 24 February 2026 u/s 147 r/w Sections 250 & 144B.
