Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping & Pay On Delivery!
 

Click Here To Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter

Home › All Judgements › Jitendra Chandralal Navlani vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Jitendra Chandralal Navlani vs. UOI (Bombay High Court)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT:
CORAM: ,
SECTION(S): , ,
GENRE:
CATCH WORDS: , ,
COUNSEL:
DATE: June 8, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: June 28, 2016 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 148 notice issued to, and reassessment order passed on, a non-existing entity is without jurisdiction. A writ petition can be entertained despite the presence of alternate remedy

Normally we would not have entertained a petition as an alternative remedy to file an appeal is available to the petitioners. However, prima facie, the impugned notice has been issued in respect of a non existing entity as M/s. Addler Security Systems Pvt. Ltd., which stands dissolved, having been struck off the Rolls of the Registrar of Companies much before its issue. Consequently, the assessment has been framed also in respect of the non-existing entity. This defect in issuing a reopening notice to a non-existing company and framing an assessment consequent thereto is a issue which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to assess the non-existing company. Thus, prima facie, both the impugned notice dated 24th March, 2015 and the Assessment Order dated 28th March, 2016, are without jurisdiction.

Related Posts:

  • S. Rajalakshmi vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) The reopening of assessment u/s 147 on the basis of information in the form of observations of ITAT is on sound footing and which constitutes a tangible material for the purpose of reopening as the assessee did not file her return of income as required u/s 139(1) of the Act…
  • CIT vs. Viksit Engineering Ltd (Bombay High Court) Thus two port-folios one for "Investment" and other for "Trading". Besides for the earlier years the Revenue accepted the claim of short term capital gain. Thus the income has to be taxed as short term capital gain. We are of the view that respondent holding the shares for a short…
  • PCIT vs. M. J. Exports Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) All this effort and time would have been saved if the Tribunal had made specific reference to contrary decisions or not stated so in the absence of referring to the citations. Therefore, we would request the Tribunal to be specific about the decisions and make a mention of the citation…
  • CST vs. Crescendo Associates (Bombay High Court) The service of maintenance, management or repair, rendered by any person to any other person is a taxable service but in the context and backdrop in which the issue arises before us, we do not think that a taxable service is rendered. The Revenue does not wish to take into…
  • Ventura Textiles Ltd vs. CIT (Bombay High Court) Concealment of particulars of income was not the charge against the appellant, the charge being furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. As discussed above, it is trite that penalty cannot be imposed for alleged breach of one limb of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act while penalty proceedings were initiated for breach…
  • SICOM Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) We hope and trust that all pending refund applications are processed in the order in which they are received by the Respondents. If refunds are generated on account of orders of Higher Forums, Authorities and Courts, then, it is the bounden duty of the Revenue to grant such refund and…

Related Judgements

  1. CIT vs. Jet Speed Audio Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court) 

    The argument that the AO has been careless in bringing to tax a particular amount which is chargeable to tax and that the Revenue should not be precluded from issuing notice u/s 148 overlooks the fact that power to reopen is not a power to review an assessment order….
  2. Soignee R. Kothari vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    In the normal course of human conduct if a person has nothing to hide and serious allegations /questions are being raised about the funds a person would make available the documents which would put to rest all questions which seem to arise in the mind of the Authorities. The…
  3. Amaya Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO (Bombay High Court) 

    The petitioners have filed detailed information called for by the Assessing Officer under Section 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act and thus participated in the assessment proceedings. This having been done, it is not open for the petitioners to now contend that this Court should exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction…
  4. CIT vs. Trend Electronics (Bombay High Court) 

    In issues such as this, i.e. where jurisdictional issue is involved the same must be strictly complied with by the authority concerned and no question of knowledge being attributed on the basis of implication can arise. We also do not appreciate the stand of the revenue, that the respondent-assessee…
  5. Bayer Material Science Pvt Ltd vs. DCIT (Bombay High Court) 

    The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax would take serious note of the above and after examining the facts, if necessary, take appropriate remedial action to ensure that an assessee is not made to suffer for no fault on its part. This is particularly so as almost the entire period…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*