Delhi High Court
Karida Real Estates Private ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income ... on 2 June, 2022
$~18
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7074/2022 & CM APPLs.21705-21706/2022
KARIDA REAL ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED (SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST OF DAMIAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PRIVATE
LIMITED) ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms. Kavita Jha, Advocate with
Mr. Vaibhav Kulkarni, Mr. Anant
Mann, Mr. Aditeya Bali,
Mr. Himanshu and Mr. Udit Naresh,
Advocates.
versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX & ANR.
..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Advocate with
Mr. Vipul Agarwal and Mr. Parth
Semwal, Advocates.
% Date of Decision: 2nd June, 2022
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J (Oral):
1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated
4th April, 2022 passed by Respondent No.1 under Section 148A(d) of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 [for short 'the Act'] as well as the notice dated
4th April, 2022 issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Year
2018-19.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:03.06.2022
18:41:40
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the reassessment
proceedings are void ab initio as they have been issued in the name of
"Damian Estate Developers Private Limited a non-existent entity as it had
amalgamated with the Petitioner company with effect from 1st April, 2016
vide order dated 7th February, 2018 passed by the National Company Law
Tribunal. She relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in
Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, (2019)
416 ITR 613 (SC), wherein it has been held that the issuance of a notice to a
non-existent company is a substantive illegality and not a procedural
violation.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further states that the there is no
information and/or suggestion in respect of escapement of income of the
petitioner, which is a sine qua non for taking an action under Section 148 of
the Act as each and every amount/transaction mentioned in the show cause
notice had been appropriately disclosed and offered to tax while computing
taxable income of the Petitioner in Assessment Year 2018-19. She also
states that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of
natural justice without taking into consideration the reply dated 25th March,
2022 filed by the Petitioner.
4. Issue notice. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel accepts notice on
behalf of the Respondents-Revenue. He on instructions of the Assessing
Officer admits that the Petitioner's reply was not taken into consideration
while passing the impugned order under Section 148A(d) of the Act.
5. Keeping in view the fact that the impugned order and notice have
been issued without considering the reply filed by the Petitioner, this Court
sets aside the impugned order passed under Section 148A(d) of the Act and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:03.06.2022
18:41:40
the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act by the Respondent No.1both
dated 4th April, 2022 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. The Assessing
Officer is directed to pass a fresh reasoned order in accordance with law
after considering the reply filed by the Petitioner within eight weeks.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the present writ petition and
applications are disposed of. This Court clarifies that it has not commented
on the merits of the controversy. The rights and contention of all the parties
are left open.
MANMOHAN, J
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J
JUNE 2, 2022
AS
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:JASWANT
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:03.06.2022
18:41:40
