Facts of the
Case
Shakuntlam Softech Private Limited filed a writ
petition challenging reassessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax
Department in its name, despite the fact that it had already amalgamated with
Shakuntlam Securities Private Limited pursuant to a duly sanctioned scheme of
amalgamation.
The scheme of amalgamation was approved by the
National Company Law Tribunal, resulting in dissolution of Shakuntlam Softech
Private Limited without winding up. The factum of amalgamation was duly
intimated to the Income Tax Department prior to initiation of the impugned reassessment
proceedings.
Notwithstanding such intimation, notices under
Section 148 and subsequent reassessment proceedings were issued and continued
in the name of the amalgamating company. Aggrieved by initiation of proceedings
against a non-existent entity, the petitioner approached the Delhi High Court.
Issues
Involved
Whether reassessment proceedings
initiated in the name of an amalgamating company which had ceased to exist are
valid in law.
Whether issuance of notices to a
non-existent entity constitutes a jurisdictional defect.
Whether such defect can be cured
by invoking Section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Whether Sections 159 or 170 of
the Act validate proceedings initiated against a dissolved entity.
Petitioner’s
Arguments
The petitioner contended that upon approval of the
scheme of amalgamation, Shakuntlam Softech Private Limited ceased to exist as a
juristic person. Consequently, any notice or reassessment proceedings initiated
in its name were void ab initio.
It was argued that the issue was no longer res
integra and stood conclusively settled by the Supreme Court in Principal
Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and Spice
Entertainment Ltd., which held that assessments framed against non-existent
entities are jurisdictionally invalid and cannot be cured under Section 292B.
The petitioner further submitted that participation
by the amalgamated company does not confer jurisdiction on the Assessing
Officer and that there can be no estoppel against law.
Respondent’s
Arguments
The Revenue contended that issuance of notices in
the name of the amalgamating company was a procedural defect curable under
Section 292B of the Act. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Mahagun
Realtors (P) Ltd. to contend that proceedings could continue against the
successor entity.
It was further argued that Sections 159 and 170 of
the Act provide statutory backing for sustaining reassessment proceedings in
cases of succession and amalgamation.
Court Order
/ Findings
The Delhi High Court allowed the writ petition and
quashed the impugned reassessment proceedings. The Court held that:
Upon amalgamation, the
amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law.
Issuance of reassessment notices
and continuation of proceedings in the name of a non-existent entity
constitutes a substantive jurisdictional defect.
Such defect is not procedural and
cannot be cured by invoking Section 292B of the Act.
Sections 159 and 170 do not
validate proceedings initiated against an entity which had already ceased to
exist.
The decision in Mahagun
Realtors does not dilute the binding ratio of Maruti Suzuki and Spice
Entertainment and is confined to its peculiar factual context.
The Court emphasized the importance of certainty, consistency,
and uniformity in tax administration.
Important
Clarification
The judgment conclusively clarifies that:
Reassessment proceedings
initiated in the name of an amalgamating company are void ab initio.
Jurisdictional defects arising
from non-existence of the assessee cannot be cured under Section 292B.
Participation by the successor
entity does not validate proceedings initiated without jurisdiction.
Revenue authorities are under a
mandatory obligation to issue notices in the name of the amalgamated entity
once amalgamation is duly intimated.
This decision further consolidates the settled
jurisprudence governing reassessment proceedings in cases involving
amalgamation and corporate restructuring.
Link to download the order - https://www.mytaxexpert.co.in/uploads/1770203558_SHAKUNTLAMSOFTECHPRIVATELIMITEDNOWAMALGAMATEDWITHSHAKUNTLAMSECURITIESPRIVATELIMITEDVsINCOMETAXOFFICERWARD231DELHIANR..pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general information and
knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify the information
from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal, professional, or
advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim all liability
arising from the use of this content. The material has been prepared with the
assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment