Case Law Details
Durja Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs PCIT (ITAT Kolkata)
The issue under consideration is whether Passing of revisionery order against amalgamating company which was not in existence on the date of order is justified in law?
In the present case, the impugned revisional order(s) u/s. 263 of the Act has been passed by the ld. Pr. CIT against the aforesaid captioned assessee’s who are not existing in the eyes of law. Moreover, notice informing proposed action of revision u/s. 263 of the Act was issued to them after they/assessee’s had already amalgamated with different legal entities as per NCLT order. The impugned orders have been passed by the ld. Pr. CIT after the assessee’s informed their respective AO’s about the passing of NCLT order, by virtue of which the assessee’s/company(ies) had merged with the other corporate entities.
High Court states that, when the department was aware of the dissolution of assessee’s companies, it was incumbent upon the Ld. Pr. CIT to take notice of this fact and substitute the successor company while passing the impugned order, after giving opportunity of hearing to amalgamated company as envisaged under section 263 of the Act. And since the aforesaid action has not been admittedly done by the Ld. Pr. CIT, the impugned order passed against the non-existing entities, which ceased to exist on the date of the impugned order is void. Relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex court in Maruti Suzuki (Supra) and Spice Infotainment Ltd.(supra), HC note that the impugned order passed under section 263 0f the Act by the Ld. Pr. CIT against the amalgamating companies which were not in existence on the date of the impugned order is a nullity and, therefore, they are inclined to quash all the impugned orders as shown in the captioned appeals.
FULL TEXT OF THE HIGH COURT ORDER /JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
