Sumant Investmentsprivate Limited v. Assistant Commissionerof Income Tax

$~3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +W.P.(C) 12618/2022 and CM APPL. 38229/2022 (for stay) SUMANT INVESTMENTSPRIVATE LIMITED ..... Petitioner Through :Mr. V.P. Gupta and Mr. AnunavKumar, Advocates. versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONEROF INCOME TAX..... Respondent Through :Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Senior StandingCounsel for Revenue. %Date of Decision: 28[th]September, 2022 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA J U D G M E N T MANMOHAN, J (Oral): 1.Present Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Order passedunder Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) and theNotice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated 20[th]July, 2022 forthe Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2014-15. 2.Learned Counsel for the Petitioner states that the impugned Order andnotice are void ab initio as the same have been issued in the name of SareMarketing Private Limited which was amalgamated with the PetitionerCompany i.e. Sumant Investments Private Ltd. w.e.f. 1[st]April, 2014 videorder of this Court dated 19[th]September, 2014 under Section 391 - 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 and accordingly, the company, namely, SareMarketing Private Limited has not been in existence since then. 3.He states that the Petitioner informed the Respondent about the statusof the assessee vide several replies filed in response to notices issued underSection 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’). He, however, statesthat the Respondent without taking cognizance of replies of the petitioner,proceeded to pass the impugned order under Section 148A(d) in the name ofSare Marketing Private Limited. He also emphasises that on 9[th]February,2016, the Assessing Officer had passed an assessment order with regard tothe erstwhile company for the Assessment Year 2013-14, after taking intoaccount the factum of amalgamation of Sare Marketing Private Limited withthe petitioner company. 4.He submits that the notice being in the name of a non-existentcompany cannot be complied with and accordingly, the petitioner companycannot file return in response to notice under Section 148 of the Act in thename of Sare Marketing Private Limited with reference to PAN of abovecompany. 5.Issue notice.6.Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, learned Senior Standing Counsel for Revenueaccepts notice. 7.He states that he has received following instructions from theAssessing Officer vide e-mail dated 23[rd]September, 2022. “After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of thecase it is noticed that notice u/s 148 was issued in this case in thename of M/sSare Marketing P. Ltd. for the A.Y. 2014-15.Further, perusal of records revealed that this entity was mergedwith M/s. Sumant Investments Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.04.2014 vide Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s order dated 19.09.2014. Therefore, itis on records that the entity M/s Sare Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was notin existence on the date of issue of notices u/s 148A(b) and u/s 148of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8.In view of the aforesaid facts and the stand taken by the respondentthe impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Income Tax Act,1961 and the Notice issued under Section 148 of the Act, both dated20th July, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 are set aside. If the lawpermits the respondents/revenue to take further steps in the matter, they shallbe at liberty to do so. Needless to state that if and when such steps are takenand if the petitioners have a grievance, they shall be at liberty to take theirremedies in accordance with law. 9.Accordingly, the present writ petition and the application standdisposed of. MANMOHAN, J SEPTEMBER 28, 2022 j MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J