[Cites 21, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Paras Defence And Space Technologies ... vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, 15 ... on 27 January, 2026
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2026:BHC-OS:2958-DB
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.4934 OF 2022
Paras Defence and Space Technologies Ltd. .. Petitioner.
Versus
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
15 (1) (1) and Others .. Respondents.
Digitally signed
by SMITA
SMITA RAJNIKANT
RAJNIKANT JOSHI
JOSHI Date:
2026.02.02
Adv. Devendra Jain with Adv. Shashank A. Mehta and Adv. Saukhya
17:21:38 +0530
Lakade i/b. Adv. Radha Halbe, for the Petitioner.
Adv. Sushma Nagraj and Ms. Adyasha Day, for Respondents.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: JANUARY 27, 2026
P. C.
1 RULE. Respondents waive service. With the consent of the
parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2 The above Writ Petition challenges the order of assessment
dated 29.09.2022 passed under Section 143(3), read with Section 144B,
of the Act, the Notice of demand dated 29.09.2022 issued under Section
156, and the Show Cause Notices issued for imposing various penalties
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
in respect of Assessment Year 2020-21, inter-alia, on the ground that
such notices were issued, and the impugned assessment order was
passed, in the name of a non-existent entity.
3 Brief facts of the case are that the Petitioner in the present
case ('Paras Defence and Space Technologies Limited') is a Listed
Public Company engaged in defence engineering & manufacturing. Vide
Order dated 07.06.2018, the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT)
approved the scheme of amalgamation of M/s Mechvac India Limited
and M/s Concept Shapers And Electronics Private Limited
("erstwhile/transferor company") with the Petitioner, whereby the
former companies got amalgamated into the Petitioner w.e.f.
01.04.2017.
4 It is submitted by the Petitioner that details about the said
amalgamation were duly communicated to the Income Tax department
during the course of assessment proceedings for Assessment Year 2018-
19. A notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 17.12.2020
(annexed as Exhibit A2 to the Writ Petition) specifically asking for the
details about the scheme of amalgamation. The Petitioner responded to
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
the said notice vide submission dated 01.02.2021 (annexed as Exhibit
A3 to the Writ Petition) and provided details of the amalgamation inter-
alia of the erstwhile/transferor company named 'Concept Shapers And
Electronics Private Limited' (hereinaftere referred to as "Concept").
Thereafter, the order of assessment for the said Assessment Year (AY
2018-19) was duly passed in the name of the Petitioner on 12.04.2021
(annexed as Exhibit B to the Writ Petition).
5 For the Assessment Year in question, namely, A.Y. 2020-21,
the Petitioner filed its return of income on 31.12.2020 in its own name
( annexed as Exhibit C1 to the Writ Petition). Thereafter, the case of the
Petitioner for A.Y. 2020-21 was taken up for regular assessment by
issuing notice under Section 143(2) of the Act followed by several
notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act and a Show Cause Notice
proposing to make various additions.
6 During the course of the said assessment proceedings for
A.Y. 2020-21, notices dated 25.11.2021 (Exhibit D1) and 18.01.2022
(Exhibit D3) were issued under section 142(1) in the name of Concept.
In response thereto, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 24.01.2022
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
( annexed as Exhibit D4 to the Writ Petition) again provided details
about the amalgamation of 'Concept Shapers And Electronics Private
Limited' with the Petitioner. Further, the submissions made by the
Petitioner were either on its own letterhead or under the seal of 'Paras
Defence and Space Technologies Limited'. However, Respondent No.1
continued to issue notice under Section 142(1) in the name of the
Concept.
7 Thereafter, Respondent No.1 issued the show cause notice
on 21.09.2022 again in the name of Concept ( annexed as Exhibit E1 to
the Writ Petition). The Petitioner responded to the said notice under its
own name and seal ( annexed as Exhibit E2 to the Writ Petition).
8 Respondent No.1, thereafter, passed the Order of regular
assessment on 29.09.2022 under Section 143(3) of the Act ( annexed as
Exhibit F to the Writ Petition) in the name of ' Concept Shapers And
Electronics Private Limited' making several additions in respect of AY
2020-21. Further, the Notice of demand under section 156 of the Act
(Exhibit G) and the notice for initiating the penalty proceedings
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
(Exhibits H, I, J to the Writ Petition) were also issued in the name of
'Concept Shapers And Electronics Private Limited'.
9 In this factual backdrop, Mr. Devendra Jain, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended as under:
(a) That upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned,
amalgamating/transferor company(s) ceases to exist in the eyes of law
as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial
Syndicate Ltd v. CIT [1990] 53 Taxman 92 (SC) . Once, such transferor
company ceases to exist, it cannot fall within the definition of a 'person'
as defined under Section 2(31) of the Act. Consequently, no proceedings
can be conducted in respect of a ' person' which no longer exists. Thus,
the notices and the impugned Assessment Order, having been issued in
the name of a non-existent entity, were void-ab-inito and bad in law. In
support of this contention the Petitioner relied upon the following
judicial precedents:
- PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com
375 (SC)
- Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CST (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Delhi
HC)
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
- Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT [WP No. 2742/2019 (Bom.)]
-New Age Buildtech Private Limited v. NFAC [WP/5308
/2022] (Bom.)
- J. M. Mhatre Infra Pvt. Ltd. v. The Union of India
[WPL/16514/2023] (Bom.)
- Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT [WP No. 3562/2019
(Bom.)]
- Godrej Projects Development Ltd. v. DCIT [WPL No.
21009/2021 (Bom.)]
- CIT v. Intel Technology India (P) Ltd [2016] 380 ITR 272
(Kar.)
- PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Network India (P) Ltd. [2018]
402 ITR 21 (Del).
10 On the other hand, Ms. Sushma Nagaraj, the learned
counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent, relying upon the
Affidavit in Reply dated 03.09.2025, made the following submissions -
(a) That Notice under Section 143(2) dated 29.06.2021 was issued in
the name of the Petitioner, but the subsequent notices and order
of assessment were issued/passed in the name of the erstwhile
company [Concept] on account of a technical glitch whilst
selecting the name in the computer system. However, the PAN
mentioned in all the above communications was that of the
Petitioner. Accordingly, the mistake in mentioning the name of
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
Concept was merely a mistake and curable under the provisions of
Section 292B of the Act.
(b) That the Petitioner did not raise any issue regarding the above in
the assessment proceedings and duly participated therein. The
Petitioner was therefore aware that the proceedings were being
conducted against it and not Concept .
(c) That the Petitioner has made various submissions on the merits of
the matter, being response/ submissions dated 24.1.2022 (Exhibit
D4 to the Writ Petition), 30.1.22 (Exhibit D5 to the Writ Petition),
23.9.22 (Exhibit E2 to the Writ Petition), 24.9.22 (Exhibit E3 to
the Writ Petition). The Petitioner was therefore aware, and
understood that the notices were meant for it. The notices were
replied and dealt with by them fully. Therefore, there was no
prejudice to the Petitioner.
11. In support of the above, the learned counsel for the Revenue
placed reliance on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of
Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413 (Delhi)
and indicated that the Special Leave Petition against the decision of the
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
Delhi High Court was also dismissed.
12. In rejoinder, Mr. Jain, the learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the Petitioner, contended as under:
(a) That the Respondent No.1 continued to issue notices and also
passed the order in the name of a non-existent entity. This cannot
be said to be a technical mistake. Had there been a technical glitch
in the computer system, then atleast Respondent No.1 ought to
have disclosed/mentioned about it somewhere in the body of any
notices/Order. However, no such averment or note was provided by
Respondent No.1 during the entire assessment proceedings. It is
not correct for Respondent No.1 to now state that wrong selection
of the name of the Assessee was merely on account of a technical
glitch in the computer system. Such an explanation being provided
for the first time in the affidavit-in-reply appears to be an
afterthought. Also, Respondent No.1 has not brought on record any
evidence/material which substantiates its averment about the so-
called technical glitch on the computer system.
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
(b) That continuing and concluding the assessment in the name of a
non-existent entity cannot be regarded as a mistake curable under
Section 292B as held in following judicial precedents:
- PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra)
- Alok Knit Exports Limited v. DCIT (supra)
(c) That merely because the Petitioner participated in the assessment
proceedings by itself does not cure the jurisdictional error
committed by Respondent No.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) has also held that
participation in the proceedings by the Assessee cannot operate as
an estoppel against law.
(d) That the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Sky Light
Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra) has been duly considered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd
(supra), and also by this Court in Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT
(supra), and it was held that the said decision was rendered in the
peculiar facts of that case. It is submitted that the said case is
distinguishable from the facts of the present case. Consequently, he
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
submitted that the impugned Assessment Order as well as all
notices emanating therefrom be quashed.
13. We have heard both the parties at length and have also
perused the records produced before us and also the affidavit in reply
filed by the Respondents. It is an undisputed fact that the Petitioner had
made Respondent No.1 aware about the amalgamation of 'Concept
Shapers And Electronics Private Limited' with the Petitioner during the
course of the assessment proceedings for AY 2018-19 as well as during
the assessment proceedings for the relevant Assessment Year 2020-21.
Despite the aforesaid, Respondent No.1 issued the Notice under Section
142(1) in the name of Concept; proceeded to issue the Show Cause
Notice in the name of Concept; and ultimately even passed the order of
assessment, issued notice of demand under Section 156 and issued
penalty Show Cause Notices; all in the name of Concept. Had there
been a genuine technical glitch in the selection of the name in the
computer system, then Respondent No.1 ought to have reported the
same somewhere in the impugned notices/ the Show Cause Notice or
atleast in the impugned order of assessment. However, neither any
corrigendum was issued nor any averment was made in this respect in
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
the body of the notices or in the assessment order. Merely stating that
the mistake was on account of a technical glitch or that the PAN was
correctly quoted, does not absolve Respondent No.1 from the mandate
to issue notice and pass the order of assessment in the correct name.
14 We are not inclined to hold that issuing notices and passing
of the Assessment Order in the name of a non-existent entity is a
procedural error which can be cured by taking recourse to the
provisions of Section 292B. This is a case where Respondent No.1 has
conducted assessment for the period (i.e. Assessment Year 2020-21)
which falls post the date of amalgamation. In such a case it is certainly
expected from Respondent No.1 to be mindful as to which entity is he
assessing. Issuing notice and passing of the Assessment Order in the
name of Concept, for an Assessment year which falls subsequent to its
cessation, certainly cannot be pardoned as a curable defect.
15 The argument of the revenue that issuance of notice/order
in the name of a non-existent entity is a curable defect pursuant to the
provision of Section 292B, has already been negated by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra), wherein it
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
was inter-alia held as under:
" 31. 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 292B. A close
reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April
2018, 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 292B. Thus, there is no
conflict between the decisions in Spice
Enfotainment (supra) on the one hand and
Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) on the other
hand.
It is of relevance to refer to Section 292B of the
Income Tax Act which reads as follows:
"292B. No return of income, assessment, notice,
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
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
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 292B.
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. (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 assesseed 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 assesseed 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
previous year in which the succession took place
up to the date of succession and of the previous
year preceding that year shall be made on the
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
successor in like manner and to the same extent as
it would have been made on the predecessor, and
all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may
be, apply accordingly.
(3) When any sum payable under this section in
respect of the income of such business or
profession for the previous year in which the
succession took place up to the date of succession
or for the previous year preceding that year,
assesseed on the predecessor, cannot be recovered
from him, the 99[Assessing] Officer shall record a
finding to that effect and the sum payable by the
predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and
recoverable from the successor and the successor
shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor
any sum so paid.
(4) Where any business or profession carried on
by a Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and
simultaneously with the succession or after the
succession there has been a partition of the joint
family property between the members or groups of
members, the tax due in respect of the income of
the business or profession succeeded to, up to the
date of succession, shall be assesseed and
recovered in the manner provided in section 171,
but without prejudice to the provisions of this
section. Explanation. For the purposes of this
section, "income" includes any gain accruing from
the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the
business or profession as a result of the succession"
Now, in the present case, learned Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted
that SPIL ceased to be an eligible assessee in terms
of the provisions of Section 144C read with clause
(b) of sub section 15. Moreover, it has been urged
that in consequence, the final assessment order
dated 31 October 2016 was beyond limitation in
terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153
(4). For the purposes of the present proceeding,
we do not consider it necessary to delve into that
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
aspect of the matter having regard to the reasons
which have weighed us in the earlier part of this
judgment."
Thus, the Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that the issue
of jurisdiction goes to the root of the matter and any error committed in
it, is a substantive illegality not curable under Section 292B. Further,
even this court in the case of Alok Knit Exports Ltd. v. DCIT (supra)
held as under:
"8. The stand now taken in the affidavit in reply and
submissions of Mr. Mohanty is nothing but an
afterthought by respondent after having committed a
fundamental error. We would have expected
respondent no. 1 to have at least applied his mind and
looked for documents which were already on file to see
whether Niraj Realtors existed before issuing notice
under section 148 of the Act. Respondents' records
would have indicated that Niraj Realtors ceased to
exist and his predecessor/colleague has issued notice
for the Assessment Year 2011-2012 along with the
reasoning in the name of petitioner.
Therefore, the stand of respondent today that it
was an error which could be corrected under section
292B of the Act is not acceptable to this Court...."
(emphasis supplied)
16 Heavy reliance is placed by the learned Counsel appearing
on behalf of the Revenue on the decision of the Delhi High Court in the
case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra). We find that this
decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case. In that case,
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
the concerned Assessing Officer, in the reasons recorded for reopening,
had duly reported/stated the fact that the assessee therein was formerly
known by the name 'Sky Light Hospitality Pvt Ltd.' and after conversion
was known by the name 'Sky Light Hospitality LLP'. However, the
Notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of erstwhile entity
''Sky Light Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.' Conversion of the private limited
company into a limited liability partnership with effect from 13.05.2016
was noticed and mentioned by the Assessing Officer at several places
like in the tax evasion report, the reasons to believe recorded by the
Assessing Officer, the approval obtained from the Principal
Commissioner and the order under Section 127 of the Act. It was in this
background that the High Court of Delhi observed that there was
substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record which
established that issuance of notice in the name of 'Skylight Hospitality
Pvt. Ltd.' was a mistake. In contrast, in the facts of the present case,
despite the Petitioner having already informed Respondent No.1 about
the amalgamation several times, in none of the correspondence did
Respondent No.1 make any attempt to convey that he had duly taken
note of such amalgamation. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in
the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) has already
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
distinguished the decision relied by the revenue by observing as under :-
" .... .... .... .... .... .... ...
Now, it is evident from the above extract that it
was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court
indicated its agreement that the wrong name given
in the notice was merely a clerical error, capable of
being corrected under Section 292B. The "peculiar
facts" of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the
decision of the Delhi High Court in Sky Light
Hospitality LLP (supra). Skylight Hospitality, an
LLP, (supra) had taken over on 13 May 2016 and
acquired the rights and liabilities of Skylight
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd upon conversion under the
Limited Liability Partnership Act 2008. It instituted
writ proceedings for challenging a notice under
Sections 147/148 of the Act 1961 dated 30 March
2017 for AY 2010-2011. The "reasons to believe"
made a reference to a tax evasion report received
from the investigation unit of the income tax
department. The facts were ascertained by the
investigation unit. The reasons to believe referred
to the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the
findings recorded in it. Though the notice under
Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of
Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to
exist upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as
the Delhi High Court held "substantial and
affirmative material and evidence on record" to
show that the issuance of the notice in the name of
the dissolved company was a mistake. The tax
evasion report adverted to the conversion of the
private limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the
reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer
adverted to the approval of the Principal
Commissioner. The PAN number of the LLP was
also mentioned in some of the documents. The
notice under Sections 147/148 was not in
conformity with the reasons to believe and the
approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in
this background that the Delhi High Court held
that the case fell within the purview of Section
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
292B for the following reasons:
... .... .... .... .... .... ..."
17 Even this court in the case of Alok Knit Exports Limited v.
DCIT (supra) had declined to follow the decision of the Delhi High
Court in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. ACIT (supra) citing the
following:
"5. Mr. Mohanty appearing for respondents
submitted that it was a human error which could be
corrected under section 292B of the Act. According
to Mr. Mohanty human errors and mistakes cannot
and should not nullify proceedings which were
otherwise valid and no prejudice has been caused.
Mr. Mohanty, relying upon the judgment of the
Delhi High Court in Sky Light Hospitality
LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 90 taxmann.com 413/254
Taxman 109/405 ITR 296, submitted that that was
the effect and mandate of section 292B of the Act.
Mr. Mohanty also relied upon the order passed by
the Apex Court when Sky Light Hospitality
LLP (supra) was escalated to the Apex Court Sky
Light Hospitality LLP v. Asstt. CIT [2018] 92
taxmann.com 93/254 Taxman 390. These do not
help Mr. Mohanty's case. This cannot be a general
proposition as the Apex Court has expressly stated
"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
292B of the IT Act .
(emphasis supplied)
6. The Apex Court in its recent judgment on this
subject in Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India
Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375/265 Taxman
515/416 ITR 613, considered the judgment of Sky
Light Hospitality LLP (supra) of the Apex Court and
said that the Apex Court has expressly mentioned
that in the peculiar facts of that case wrong name
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
given in the notice was merely a clerical error. The
Apex Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra),
has also observed that what weighed in the
dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the
peculiar facts of that case. The Apex Court has
reiterated the settled position that the basis on
which jurisdiction is invoked is under section 148 of
the Act and when such jurisdiction was invoked on
the basis of something which was fundamentally at
odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating
entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of
amalgamation, the notice is bad in law..."
18 Having dealt with decision of the Delhi High Court in Sky
Light Hospitality LLP (supra), we are of the view that Respondent No.1
has committed a jurisdictional error by issuing notices and passing the
Order of Assessment in the name of a non-existent entity, which cannot
be cured by taking recourse to the provisions of Section 292B. It is no
longer res-integra that proceedings undertaken in the name of a non-
existent entity are void. We draw support from the following:
(a) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Saraswati
Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT (supra) which held that when two
companies are merged/amalgamated and are so joined, as to form a
third company or one is absorbed into one or blended with another; the
amalgamating company loses its existence;
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
(b) The judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice
Entertainment Ltd v. CST (supra), which held that once the factum of
amalgamation of a company had been brought to the notice of the
Assessing Officer, despite which the proceedings are continued and an
Order of Assessment is passed in the name of a non-existent company,
the Order of Assessment would be void;
(c) The judgment of the Apex Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti
Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) which held that if despite informing the
assessing officer, the jurisdictional notice was issued in the name of the
erstwhile company, then the basis on which the jurisdiction was invoked
was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the
amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approval of the scheme of
amalgamation, and the participation in the proceedings by the assessee
cannot operate as an estoppel against law;
(d) Consequent to the above, this Court has consistently held that
issuance of notice/order in the name of a non-existent entity is bad in
law. We have recently endorsed that view in the case of J. M. Mhatre
Infra Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile J M Mhatre, Partnership firm) v. UOI [WPL
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
16514 OF 2023 decided on 16.12.2025].
19 Thus, in our view, considering the facts of the present case,
on the yardstick of the aforestated well settled propositions of law, the
impugned notices issued under Section 142(1), the Show Cause Notice
issued on 21.09.2022, the impugned Order of Assessment passed under
Section 143(3) r.w. Section 144B dated 29.09.2022, and the
consequential notice issued raising a demand under Section 156, as well
as the notices proposing to impose penalties, all being in the name of a
non-existent entity [i. e. Concept], are void and bad in the eyes of law.
20 Hence the following order:
(i) The present Writ Petition stands allowed.
(ii) The impugned Order of Assessment passed under Section 143(3)
r.w Section 144B dated 29.09.2022 and the consequential notice issued
raising demand under Section 156 and the notices proposing to impose
penalties are all hereby quashed and set-aside.
21 Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
3-wp-4934-2022.doc
Petition is also disposed of in terms thereof. However, there shall be no
order as to costs.
22 This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by
fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
JANUARY 27, 2026
S.R.JOSHI
