Without Partition By Metes And Bounds, Co-Sharer Cannot Seek Recovery Of Possession: Supreme Court Clarifies Limits Of Order VII Rule 7 CPC Supreme Court Holds Plaintiff Entitled To Declaration Of Title Over Undivided Half Share Despite Claiming Entire Property Under Gift Deed Supreme Court Reaffirms Legality Of Remainder Of Natural Life Sentences Without Remission, Dismisses Batch Of Writ Petitions 'State Cannot Take Advantage Of Its Own Wrong': Supreme Court Holds Promotees Entitled To Count Ad Hoc Service For Seniority If Within Quota 'Elevators Are Common Carriers, Entail Heightened Duty of Care': Supreme Court Upholds NCDRC Order Holding OTIS Principally Liable For Death Due To Malfunctioning Lift Supreme Court Dismisses Compensation Claim Under Motor Vehicles Act, Holds Reach Stacker Operating in Custom-Bonded ICD Area Is Not a "Motor Vehicle" Missing ACRs Due To Illegal Termination Cannot Block Higher Judicial Pay Scales: Supreme Court Grants Relief To Rajasthan Judicial Officer Subsequent Suit Generally Transferable To Court Where Earlier Suit On Same Subject Matter Is Pending: Allahabad High Court Successive Anticipatory Bail Maintainable Under BNSS If Fact Situation Changes Or Previous Findings Become Obsolete: Andhra Pradesh High Court Tenant's "Deemed Purchaser" Right Defeated By Retrospective Notification Under Section 88(1)(b) Of Tenancy Act: Bombay High Court Buyer Not Entitled To Refund Of Earnest Money Once Sale Deed Is Duly Executed Under The Agreement: Calcutta High Court Contradictory Pleas Vitiate Defence; Drawer Liable Even If Signed Blank Cheque Was Handed Over: Delhi High Court Working Mother's Relocation To Another City Not A Ground To Completely Deny Overnight Custody To Father: Karnataka High Court Civil Courts Barred From Granting Injunctions Against SARFAESI Actions Even If Partition Suit Is Maintainable: Kerala High Court S.147 NI Act Is A Special Law, Overrides S.320 CrPC; Offence Can Be Compounded At Any Stage Even After Dismissal Of Appeal: Madras High Court Appellate Court Can Allow Additional Evidence To Ensure Fair Adjudication Even If Not Produced In Trial: Madhya Pradesh High Court Police Can Freeze Bank Accounts Under Section 106 BNSS Upon Suspicion Of 'Proceeds Of Crime': Punjab & Haryana High Court

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​.

Latest Legal News