IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process

A notice to a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality, not a procedural lapse: Delhi High Court Quashes Income Tax Notices

30 September 2024 1:06 PM

By: sayum


Delhi High Court in Religare Enterprises Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax quashed reassessment notices and orders issued in the name of a dissolved amalgamating company. The court held that any assessment or notice issued to a non-existent entity after amalgamation is void ab initio, following the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd..

Religare Securities Limited (RSL) merged with Religare Enterprises Limited (REL) through a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) with an effective date of April 1, 2016. RSL had duly informed the tax authorities of this amalgamation in December 2017. Despite this, in April 2021, the Income Tax Department issued a reassessment notice to RSL, a company that no longer existed. After a previous quashing of the reassessment notice, the department continued the proceedings and issued subsequent orders in the name of the amalgamated entity, REL.

REL challenged the proceedings, contending that notices and orders issued in the name of a non-existent entity are invalid under the law.

The court primarily focused on whether the reassessment notices issued to a dissolved company (RSL) are valid under the Income Tax Act. The petitioners argued that any notice issued to a non-existent company following its dissolution under a merger or amalgamation scheme is void. They relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., which held that tax proceedings initiated in the name of a dissolved company cannot be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The Income Tax Department contended that the defect of issuing a notice to the dissolved company was procedural and curable under Section 292B. They also argued that the amalgamated entity (REL) participated in the proceedings, and thus, the defect should not invalidate the reassessment.

The court ruled that issuing notices to a company that has ceased to exist after an amalgamation constitutes a jurisdictional error, not merely a procedural one. The bench noted:

"The issuance of notices in the name of a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality and cannot be rectified under Section 292B."

The court further explained that participation by the amalgamated entity (REL) in the tax proceedings does not cure the jurisdictional defect. The judges emphasized that tax authorities must ensure that notices are properly addressed to the correct legal entity, especially after being informed of a merger.

Relying heavily on the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the court reaffirmed that any assessment or notice addressed to a dissolved entity is legally unsustainable.

The Delhi High Court quashed the reassessment notices and orders issued in the name of RSL, holding them to be void and without jurisdiction. The ruling reinforces the principle that tax authorities cannot issue notices or conduct assessments against dissolved companies, as it is a violation of procedural and substantive legal standards.

Date of Decision: September 26, 2024

Religare Enterprises Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax​.

Similar News