Diplomat Limited Formerly Known As Mudrika Goods Privatelimited v. Income Tax Officer Ward 11/1 Kolkata And Ors

ORDER SHEETWPO/1009/2023IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTACONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTIONORIGINAL SIDE DIPLOMAT LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS MUDRIKA GOODS PRIVATELIMITED VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 11/1 KOLKATA AND ORS. BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE MD. NIZAMUDDIN Date: 12[th] May, 2023. Appearance:Ms. Swapna Das, Adv.Mr. Siddharth Das, Adv.…For the PetitionerMrs. Smita Das De, Adv.Mr. Prithu Dudhoria, Adv.…For the Respondents The Court : Heard learned advocates appearing for the parties. In this writ petition, petitioner has challenged the impugned noticedated 25[th] July, 2022 relating to assessment year 2015-16 under Section148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the name of transferor company onthe ground that the noticee has already been amalgamated on 25[th] May,2022 with retrospective effect from 1[st] April 2020 and the department hasbeen intimated about this amalgamation which is matters of record andsuch notice in the name of a non-existing company is not tenable in the eyeof law since information of such amalgamation has already given to therespondent on 8[th] February, 2022 yet the Respondent concerned has notwithdrawn the impugned notice. In support of his contention Mr. Agarwal, learned advocate appearingfor the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Gujarat High Courtin the case of Takshashila Realties Pvt. Ltd. Versus Dy Commissioner of Income Tax reported in 2016 SCC OnLine Guj 6462 and specificallyrelies on Paragraph 10 of the said judgment and also my own order dated2[nd] August, 2021 in WPA 1791 of 2020 (Brubeck Resources Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.). Considering the submissions of the parties, I am of the view that theimpugned notice dated 25[th] July, 2022 (annexure P-6 to the writ petition) isnot tenable in the eye of law and all further steps pursuant to the saidimpugned notices also are not tenable in the eye of law and the same arequashed. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned notices are quashedsolely on the ground that the impugned notice was issued in the name ofnon-existing company. However, quashing of this notice will not prevent therespondents from issuing fresh notice in accordance with law. Since no affidavits have been called for, allegations made in the writpetition are not deemed to have been denied by the respondents. Accordingly, WPO 1009 of 2023 is disposed of. (MD. NIZAMUDDIN, J.) TR/