International Hospital Limited v. Dcit Circle 12 (2

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on: September 11, 2024 Judgment pronounced on September 26, 2024 + ITA 116/2023 INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LIMITED .....Appellant Through: Mr. Simran Mehta, Advocate. versus DCIT CIRCLE 12 (2) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 13807/2022 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LIMITED (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE SECURITIES LTD) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 11498/2019 BABA LEASE & INVESTMENT PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakash Sinha, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD NO. 15(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC along with Ms. Dacchita Shahi and Ms. Anjuja Pethia, JSCs, Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang and Ms. Anu Priya Minz, Advs. + W.P.(C) 1894/2020 M/S BABA LEASE & INVESTMENT PVT LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Prakash Sinha, Adv. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD NO 16(1), DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Anurag Ojha, SSC along with Ms. Hemlata Rawat and Mr. V.K. Saksena, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 10882/2021 GARTNER INDIA RESEARCH AND ADVISORY SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra, Ms. Singdha Gautam, Mr. S.S. Tomar and Mr. Ankit Sahni, Advs. versus THE ASSESSING OFFICER NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr SCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Muskan Goel, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Ms. Surabhi Jain and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 13862/2021 BSBK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED (RESULTING COMPANY OF VOGUE LEASING AND FINANCE PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitij Signature Not Verified Garg and Mr. Sourav Verma, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR-13 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. + W.P.(C) 13883/2021 BSBK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED (RESULTING COMPANY OF MADHULIKA FINANCE COMPANY LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitij Garg and Mr. Sourav Verma, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR-13 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. + W.P.(C) 13930/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RGAM INVESTMENT ADVISERS PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 14005/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 14061/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE ARTS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. Adv. + W.P.(C) 14005/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE CAPITAL MARKETS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 14061/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD. (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RELIGARE ARTS INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. Through: + W.P.(C) 14062/2021 RELIGARE ENTERPRISES LTD (AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST OF RGAM CAPITAL INDIA LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal Ms. Manisha Sharma and Ms. Somya Jain, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 14296/2021 BSBK ENGINEERS PRIVATE LIMITED (RESULTING COMPANY OF PARISHUDH FINANCE COMPANY PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitij Garg and Mr. Sourav Verma, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR-13 DELHI .....Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. + W.P.(C) 14306/2021 RANGOLI RESORTS PVT LTD (AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST OF POLYFLEX MARKETING PVT LTD) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Jain, Mr. Aniket D. Agrawal, Ms. Manisha Sharma, Mr. Saksham Singhal and Mr. Samarth Chaudhari, Advocates Samarth Chaudhari, Advocates versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, SSC along with Mr. Anant Mann, JSC, Mr. Abhishek Anand and Mr. Pranjal Singh, Advs. + W.P.(C) 14798/2021 MADHU VINIYOG PRIVATE LIMITED (MARIGOLD NIRMAN PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH PETITIONER) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Rohit Bansal, Adv. versus + DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents .....Respondents Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr SCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Muskan Goel, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Ms. Surabhi Jain and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates. Through: W.P.(C) 4035/2022 QUALCOMM INDIA PVT. LTD. AFTER MERGER OF CSR TECHNOLOGY INDIA- PRIVATE LIMITED. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19-1 & ORS. .....Respondents Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. Through: + W.P.(C) 4038/2022 QUALCOMM INDIA PVT. LTD. -AFTER MERGER OF IKANOS COMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19 (1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. + W.P.(C) 4103/2022 QUALCOMM INDIA PVT. LTD. -AFTER MERGER OF CSR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19-1 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. + W.P.(C) 5021/2022 NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR OF NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19 (1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. + W.P.(C) 4103/2022 QUALCOMM INDIA PVT. LTD. -AFTER MERGER OF CSR INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED. .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19-1 & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. + W.P.(C) 5021/2022 NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR OF NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr SCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Muskan Goel, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Ms. Surabhi Jain and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 5022/2022 M/S NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PVT LTD (SUCCESSOR OF NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16 (1) AND ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr SCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Muskan Goel, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Ms. Surabhi Jain and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 5118/2022 M/S NOKIA SOLUTIONS AND NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR OF NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORKS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16(1) AND ANR .....Respondents .....Respondents Through: Mr. Abhishek Maratha, SSC with Mr. Parth Semiwal, Mr. Apoorv Agarwal, Jr SCs, Ms. Nupur Sharma, Mr. Gaurav Singh, Ms. Muskan Goel, Mr. Bhanukaran Singh, Ms. Surabhi Jain and Mr. Himanshu Gaur, Advocates. + W.P.(C) 5134/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED ( NOW MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED) .....Petitioner Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. Through: versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSCs + W.P.(C) 5161/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (N0W MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI AND OTHERS .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5165/2022 Signature Not Verified PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERDED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5166/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5171/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5475/2022 + W.P.(C) 5166/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LTD.) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 19(1), DELHI AND ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5171/2022 PAYTM MOBILE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED INTO ONE 97 COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Deepak Chopra, Mr. Ankul Goyal and Mr. Priyam Bhatnagar, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Indruj Rai, SSC with Mr. Sanjeev Menon and Mr. Rahul Singh, JSC + W.P.(C) 5475/2022 SHAKUNTLAM SOFTECH PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW AMALGAMATED WITH SHAKUNTLAM SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED) .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Ruchesh Sinha and Ms. Monalisa Maity, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 23(1) DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Puneet Rai, SSC along with Mr. Ashvini Kumar and Mr. Rishabh Nangia, SCs. + W.P.(C) 7151/2022 MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal and Mr. Drona Negi, Advocates versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC along with Ms. Dacchita Shahi and Ms. Anjuja Pethia, JSCs, Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang and Ms. Anu Priya Minz, Advs. + W.P.(C) 7217/2022 MERCER CONSULTING (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Manuj Sabharwal and Mr. Drona Negi, Advocates versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE 16(1), DELHI & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Siddhartha Sinha, SSC along with Ms. Dacchita Shahi and Ms. Anjuja Pethia, JSCs, Mr. Nring Chamwibo Zeliang and Ms. Anu Priya Minz, Advs. + W.P.(C) 13991/2022 EKUM DESIGN PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Vikas Jain, Mr. Aviral Saxena, Ms. Shrawani, Mr. Piyush Thavi and Mr. Hardik Jayal, Advs.; versus INCOME TAX OFFICER AND ORS. .....Respondents Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. Through: + W.P.(C) 14034/2022 SIDDHESHWARI TRADEX PRIVATE LIMITED Through: .....Petitioner Ms. Shreya Jain and Adv. Mr. Gaurav Tanwar, Advs. versus Signature Not Verified ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC along with Ms. Easha Kadian, JSC. + W.P.(C) 17290/2022 RANJITGARH FINANCE CO. PRIVATE LIMITED (TRANSFEREE COMPANY OF AASTHA PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS PRIVATE LIMITED) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. MANAN NARANG .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Sukhija, Mr. Milind Gautam, Mr. Priyeranjan Ambashtha and Ms. Archana Biala, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC & Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Adv. + W.P.(C) 17329/2022 & CM APPL. 57045/2023 (Direction) RANJITGARH FINANCE CO. PRIVATE LIMITED (TRANSFEREE COMPANY OF OMANSH PROPERTIES PRIVATE LIMITED) THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. MANAN NARANG .....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Mukesh Sukhija, Mr. Milind Gautam, Mr. Priyeranjan Ambashtha and Ms. Archana Biala, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC & Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Adv. + W.P.(C) 3885/2023 NCUBATE INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal & Mr. Nikhin Alex, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16 (1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 4558/2023 SUNCITY HI-TECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED - AFTER MERGER OF M/S SUPER BUILT REAL ESTATES AND LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 19(1) .....Respondent Through: Mr. Aseem Chawla, SSC with Ms. Priya Sarkar, JSC & Ms. Pratishtha Chaudhary, Adv. + W.P.(C) 3885/2023 NCUBATE INDIA SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Sumit K. Batra, Mr. Manish Khurana, Ms. Priyanka Jindal & Mr. Nikhin Alex, Advs. versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 16 (1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 4558/2023 SUNCITY HI-TECH INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED - AFTER MERGER OF M/S SUPER BUILT REAL ESTATES AND LAND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Salil Kapoor, Mr. Sumit Lalchandani and Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 24-1, DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Sunil Kumar Agarwal, SSC along with Mr. Shivansh B. Pandya, Mr. Viplav Acharya, JSCs and Mr. Utkarsh Tiwari, Adv. + W.P.(C) 5868/2023 & CM APPL. 23019/2023 (Interim Stay) ELITE WEALTH LIMITED .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Amol Sinha, Mr. Kshitij Garg and Mr. Sourav Verma, Advs. versus INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD8(1), DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC with Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSCs and Mr. Ishan Puri, Adv. + W.P.(C) 7775/2023 & CM APPL. 30016/2023 (Stay) LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT. LTD. (SUCCESSOR / TRANSFEREE COMPANY OF IP SUPPORT SERVICES (INDIA) PVT. LTD.) .....Petitioner .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik and Mr. Tanveer Zaki, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 N.DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. + W.P.(C) 7487/2024 & CM APPL. 31188/2024 (Interim Stay) LECOANET HEMANT INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Piyush Kaushik and Mr. Tanveer Zaki, Advs. versus PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Gaurav Gupta, SSC along with Mr. Shivendra Singh and Mr. Yojit Pareek, JSCs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA J U D G M E N T YASHWANT VARMA, J. 1. This batch of writ petitions and a connected Income Tax Appeal impugn orders of assessment as well as reassessment action initiated by the respondents on the ground of the amalgamated entity having never been placed on notice. The petitioners would contend that despite the respondents having been duly apprised of the factum of amalgamation, no notices were served upon the amalgamated entity and orders of assessment as well as notices of reassessment were maintained in the name of the amalgamating entity. This, according to the writ petitioners, would amount to a fatal defect rendering the final orders and notices as framed being null and void. It was their submission that the impugned action of the respondents would not sustain in light of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited[1]. 2.The respondents, on the other hand, would urge us to hold that a failure to place the amalgamated entity on notice is curable and one which would fall within the ambit of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 19612. Additionally, the respondents rest their case on a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.[3]. It is the aforesaid rival contentions which fall for our consideration in this batch. 3.For facilitating disposal of the present matters, the petitioners had 1 (2020) 18 SCC 331 2 Act 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 407 Signature Not Verified 2.The respondents, on the other hand, would urge us to hold that a failure to place the amalgamated entity on notice is curable and one which would fall within the ambit of Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 19612. Additionally, the respondents rest their case on a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-2 vs. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.[3]. It is the aforesaid rival contentions which fall for our consideration in this batch. 3.For facilitating disposal of the present matters, the petitioners had 1 (2020) 18 SCC 331 2 Act 3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 407 Signature Not Verified circulated a detailed chart pertaining to each individual writ petitioner encapsulating relevant details pertaining the Scheme of Arrangement as sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal[4] or the concerned High Court, the dates when the factum of merger may have been intimated to the respondents as well as details pertaining to orders of assessment as made or notices issued under Section 148.That chart which was presented for our consideration is appended to the judgment as “Appendix “A”. 4.From the facts which have been set forth in the lead writ petition 5being W.P.(C) 13807/2022, we find that Religare Securities Ltd. was a company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956[6]and was regularly assessed to tax under the provisions of the Act. It is also stated to be a company which was duly listed on the National Stock Exchange as well as the Bombay Stock Exchange and engaged in providing security,brokeringand depository services to its retail clients. For Assessment Year[7] 2015-16,RSL is stated to have filed its return of income on 31 March 2017. An assessment order under Section 143(3) thereafter came to be framed on 10 December 2018. Although that assessment formed subject matter of cross appeals preferred by respective sides before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal[8], the dispute forming part of assessee’s appeal ultimately came to be settled under the Direct Tax Vivad se Vishwas Act, 2020[9]. The appeal of the Revenue, however, continues to remain pending before the Tribunal. 4 NCLT 5 RSL 6 1956 Act 7 AY 8 Tribunal 9 The 2020 Act Signature Not Verified 5.Eleven entities of the Religare Groupincluding RSL are stated to have filed a petition before the NCLT for approval of a composite Scheme of Arrangement. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the Assessing Officer[10]of RSL had submitted its No Objection to the proposed Scheme before the NCLT on 28 September 2017. That Scheme ultimately came to be approved by the NCLT on 08 December 2017, pursuant to which the brokering business of RSL was demerged and vested in Religare Broking Ltd. as a going concern while the remaining balances and undertaking of RSL stood amalgamated with the petitioner, Religare Enterprises Ltd. The appointed date under the aforesaid Scheme was prescribed to be 01 April 2016. 6.It is the case of the writ petitioner that the factum of merger was duly intimated to the Assessing Officer on 29 December 2017. The petitioner is also stated to have submitted merged financial statements along with a revised Return of Income on 29 March 2019. 7.On 15 April 2021, a notice under Section 148 came to be issued in the name of RSL. The aforesaid notice was assailed by the writ petitioner by way of W.P.(C)7132/2021 before this Court and which ultimately came to be allowed along with a batch of writ petitions which formed subject matter of Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Another[11]. 8.In terms of the judgment rendered by the Court on that batch, the reassessment notice of 15 April 2021 came to be quashed. The decision in Mon Mohan Kohli as well as judgments rendered on similar lines by different High Courts ultimately travelled up to the Supreme Court and 10 AO Signature Not Verified 7.On 15 April 2021, a notice under Section 148 came to be issued in the name of RSL. The aforesaid notice was assailed by the writ petitioner by way of W.P.(C)7132/2021 before this Court and which ultimately came to be allowed along with a batch of writ petitions which formed subject matter of Mon Mohan Kohli v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax and Another[11]. 8.In terms of the judgment rendered by the Court on that batch, the reassessment notice of 15 April 2021 came to be quashed. The decision in Mon Mohan Kohli as well as judgments rendered on similar lines by different High Courts ultimately travelled up to the Supreme Court and 10 AO Signature Not Verified where the controversy with respect to the reassessment regime which would be applicable in respect of notices issued post 01 April 2021 ultimately came to be clarified in terms of the judgment rendered in Union of India and Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal[12]. Shorn of unnecessary details, suffice it to note that thedecisions of different High Courts came to be modified with liberty being accorded to the Revenue to treat the notices originally issued under Section 148 as being referable to Section 148A(b) as introduced by virtue of Finance Act, 2021 and for proceedings to be taken forward in accordance with law. 9.Acting in purported compliance of that decision, the respondents on 25 May 2022 issued a communication in the name of RSL and provided a copy of the information on the basis of which the notice of 15 April 2021 had been initially issued. It is further alleged by the writ petitioner that without granting any right of personal hearing, a final order referable to Section 148A(d) came to be passed on 28 July 2022 followed by a consequential notice under Section 148. It was the aforesaid action which ultimately led to the institution of the present writ petition. It becomes pertinent to note that it was only the Section 148A(d) order and the consequential notice under Section 148 issued pursuant to the aforesaid determination which for the first time came to be framed in the name of the resultant entity, Religare Enterprises Limited. Both the original Section 148 notice as well as the subsequent notice under Section 148A(b) were in the name of RSL. 10.It becomes pertinent to note that although Instruction No. 1/2022 dated 11 May 2022 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes[13] 12 (2023) 1 SCC 617 13 CBDT Signature Not Verified also formed subject matter of challenge in some of the writ petitions forming part of this batch, no arguments were addressed on that score. We thus confine our determination to the principal question of whether the impugned proceedings would sustain when viewed in the context of the same having been drawn in the name of entities which had ceased to exist. 11.The writ petitioners essentially contend that in terms of a Scheme of Arrangement which may ultimately come to be approved by the jurisdictional High Court or the NCLT, the amalgamating entity comes to be dissolved by operation of law. It was contended that the dissolution of the amalgamating corporate entity occurs by virtue of the NCLT or the High Court sanctioning the compromise or arrangement and this by virtue of the provisions made in Sections 230 to 232 of the Companies Act, 2013[14]and which contemplates a deemed dissolution of the transferor company without the process of winding up being resorted to. According to learned counsels who advanced submissions on the writ petitions, the dissolution of the transferor company would lead to the Court coming to the irresistible conclusion that it would have ceased to exist in the eyes of law and thus any notice issued in its name being a nullity. 12.According to the writ petitioners neither Section 159 nor Section 170 of the Act would save or validate a notice that may be issued in the name of a transferor company which did not exist on the relevant date. It was submitted that the Act itself contemplates a charge of tax being imposed on an entity which is in existence on the date of issuance of notice. The principal submission was that once that legal personality 14 2013 Act Signature Not Verified which otherwise existed had ceased to remain in existence on the date of issuance of notice, any proceedings drawn in its name or orders passed would be wholly unsustainable in law and liable to be quashed. 13.According to the writ petitioners, the challenge on grounds noticed above is no longer res integra and stands conclusively answered by the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki. It becomes pertinent to note that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki had come to be rendered on an appeal which arose from a judgment of this Court and which while upholding the decision rendered by the Tribunal had held that an assessment made in the name of Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd.[15], and which had evidently under an approved Scheme amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.[16], was a nullity. On facts it emerged that MSIL had duly intimated the AO of the amalgamation prior to the case being selected for scrutiny assessment. Notwithstanding that information being available, the AO appears to have framed a draft assessment order in the name of SPIL. 14.It was in the aforesaid backdrop that the Supreme Court firstly took note of an earlier decision of this Court in Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Service Tax17, where it had been held that an assessment made in the name of a transferor company would be void ab initio and could not possibly be viewed as a procedural defect curable or rectifiable under Section 292B of the Act. This becomes evident from the following conclusions which came to be rendered: “11. After the sanction of the scheme on 11[th] April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exit w.e.f. 1[st] July, 2003. Even if Spice had filed the 15 SPIL 16 MSIL 17 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 Signature Not Verified returns, it became incumbent upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said ‘dead person’. When notice under Section 143(2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings and assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.” 15.The Special Leave Petition which was taken against the judgment in Spice Entertainment came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Spice Enfotainment Ltd.[18]in the following terms: 15.The Special Leave Petition which was taken against the judgment in Spice Entertainment came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi vs. Spice Enfotainment Ltd.[18]in the following terms: “Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] [,] [CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7588 : (2015) 370 ITR 288] [,] [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7678] [,] [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., ITA No. 721 of 2014, order dated 24-11-2014 (Del)] [,] [CIT v. Radha Appearals (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14568] [,][CIT v. Intel Technology (India) (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9493] [,] [CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14567] [,] [CIT v. Mayank Traders (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14633] [,] [CIT v. P.D. Associates (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14632] [,] [CIT v. Foryu Overseas (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14566] [,] [CIT v. Sapient Consulting Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6615] passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.” 16.The aspect of an assessment coming to be framed in the name of a company which stood dissolved consequent to amalgamation appears to have arisen for consideration of this Court yet again in Sky Light 18 (2020) 18 SCC 353 Signature Not Verified Hospitality LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax[19]. The Sky Light Hospitality Court held that a defect in recording the name of a non-existent company would constitute a procedural error which could be cured under Section 292B of the Act. The appeal taken against that decision to the Supreme Court came to be dismissed in Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax[20]in the following terms:- “In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong namegiven in the notice was merely a clerical error which could becorrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” 17.In Maruti Suzuki it appears to have been urged by and on behalf of the Revenue that the decision in Spice Entertainment would not hold good in light of the decision which our High Court had pronounced in Sky Light Hospitality and which had come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court. Dealing with the aforesaid contention, the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki observed as follows: “28. The submission, however, which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] which was affirmed on 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] by a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan. In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] of this Court : (Skylight Hospitality case[Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] , SCC p. 147, para 1) “1. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed. 19 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 20 (2018) 13 SCC 147 Signature Not Verified Pending applications stand disposed of.” “1. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed. 19 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 20 (2018) 13 SCC 147 Signature Not Verified Pending applications stand disposed of.” Now, it is evident from the above extract that it was in the peculiarfacts of the case that this Court indicated its agreement that thewrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error, capableof being corrected under Section 292-B. The “peculiar facts” of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the decision of the Delhi HighCourt [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155: (2018) 405 ITR 296]. Skylight Hospitality, an LLP, had taken overon 13-5-2016 and acquired the rights and liabilities of SkylightHospitality Pvt. Ltd. upon conversion under the Limited LiabilityPartnership Act, 2008 (the LLP Act, 2008). It instituted writproceedings for challenging a notice under Sections 147/148 of the1961 Act dated 30-3-2017 for AY 2010-2011. The “reasons tobelieve” made a reference to a tax evasion report received from theinvestigation unit of the Income Tax Department. The facts wereascertained by the investigation unit. The reasons to believe referredto the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the findings recorded in it. Though the notice under Sections 147/148 was issued in thename of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to existupon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Courtheld “substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record” to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolvedcompany was a mistake. The tax evasion report adverted to theconversion of the private limited company into an LLP. Moreover,the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted tothe approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PAN number ofLLP was also mentioned in some of the documents. The notice underSections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believeand the approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in thisbackground that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within-the purview of Section 292B for the following reasons : (SkylightHospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296], SCC OnLine Del para 18) “18. … There was no doubt and debate that the notice wasmeant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error andmistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, theappellant having received the said notice, had filed withoutprejudice reply/letter dated 11-4-2017. They had objected tothe notice being issued in the name of the Company, whichhad ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letterindicates that they had understood and were aware, that thenotice was for them. It was replied and dealt with by them.The fact that notice was addressed to M/s SkylightHospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved,was an error and technical lapse on the part of therespondent. No prejudice was caused.” Signature Not Verified 29. The decision in Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] was distinguished with the following observations : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] , SCC OnLine Del para 19) Signature Not Verified 29. The decision in Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] was distinguished with the following observations : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] , SCC OnLine Del para 19) “19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment v. CIT [ This judgment has also been referred to as Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 500] . Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the assessing officer was informed about amalgamation but the assessment order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of assessment order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal.” 30. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] in the specialleave petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that thepeculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to thisconclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaningof Section 292-B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP [SkylightHospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405ITR 296] has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and MadrasHigh Courts in: (i) Rajender Kumar Sehgal [Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12890];SCC OnLine Del 12890]; (ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel [Chandreshbhai JayantibhaiPatel v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 4812]; and (iii) Alamelu Veerappan [Alamelu Veerappan v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13593] . 31.There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in SpiceEnfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353](dated 2-11-2017) and in Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT [SkylightHospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] (dated 6-4-2018).” 18.Arguments flowing on lines similar to those which were addressed before us in this batch appear to have been urged before the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki with it being argued that a notice in the name of a company which stood dissolved would be a curable mistake and that in any case, Section 170 of the Act would save those notices. This becomes apparent from a reading of paragraphs 32 and 33 of the report which are extracted hereinbelow: (iii) Alamelu Veerappan [Alamelu Veerappan v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13593] . 31.There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in SpiceEnfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353](dated 2-11-2017) and in Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT [SkylightHospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] (dated 6-4-2018).” 18.Arguments flowing on lines similar to those which were addressed before us in this batch appear to have been urged before the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki with it being argued that a notice in the name of a company which stood dissolved would be a curable mistake and that in any case, Section 170 of the Act would save those notices. This becomes apparent from a reading of paragraphs 32 and 33 of the report which are extracted hereinbelow: “32. Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292-B. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] , however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the special leave petition were the peculiar facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows: “292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, Signature Not Verified summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.” In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292-B. 33. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death. Section 170 provides as follows: “170. Succession to business otherwise than on death.— (1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession— 33. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death. Section 170 provides as follows: “170. Succession to business otherwise than on death.— (1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession— (a) the predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession; (b) the successor shall be assessed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the assessment of the income of the previ