{"id":3008,"date":"2011-04-13T18:24:10","date_gmt":"2011-04-13T12:54:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?p=3008"},"modified":"2011-04-13T18:24:10","modified_gmt":"2011-04-13T12:54:10","slug":"i-k-agencies-pvt-ltd-vs-wto-calcutta-high-court-reopening-notice-issued-to-amalgamating-co-void-not-saved-by-s-292b","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/i-k-agencies-pvt-ltd-vs-wto-calcutta-high-court-reopening-notice-issued-to-amalgamating-co-void-not-saved-by-s-292b\/","title":{"rendered":"I. K. Agencies Pvt Ltd vs. WTO (Calcutta High Court)"},"content":{"rendered":"<table width=\"150\" border=\"0\" align=\"right\">\n<tr>\n<td><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/?dl_id=402\" onclick=\"if (event.button==0) \r\n     setTimeout(function () { window.location = 'http:\/\/itatonline.org\/downloads.php?varname=dl_id=402&varname2=i_k_agencies_notice_merging_co.pdf'; }, 100)\" ><strong>Click here to download the judgement (i_k_agencies_notice_merging_co.pdf) <\/strong> <\/a><\/p><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p><strong><br \/>\nReopening Notice issued to Amalgamating Co Void &#038; not saved by s. 292B<br \/>\n<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Abhudey Properties Pvt. Ltd was <em>amalgamated with the assessee (I.K. Agencies) and wound up w.e.f. 1.4.1995<\/em> as a result of which the assessee took over all assets and liabilities of the wound up company. On 20.1.1997, the WTO issued a notice u\/s 17 of the W.T. Act (= s. 147) on Abhudey Properties Pvt. Ltd directing it to file its wealth-tax return for the relevant period when the said company was no more in existence. As no return was filed by the wound up company, the WTO issued a <em>notice dated 10.9.1997 u\/s 16(4) on the assessee pursuant to which the assessee filed a return<\/em>. The WTO thereafter passed an assessment order u\/s 16(3)\/17. The assessee challenged the reassessment on the ground that the <em>notice u\/s 17 having been addressed to the wound-up company, all proceedings were void<\/em>. HELD upholding the challenge:<\/p>\n<p>(i) The law is well settled that the jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding depends upon issue of a valid notice. If the notice is not properly issued, the proceedings are ultra vires. <strong>A notice issued on a non-existent person is void<\/strong>. <strong><em>The fact that the assessee has filed a return in response to the notice makes no difference<\/em><\/strong>;<\/p>\n<p>(ii) S. 42C (=s. 292B) does not save the defect in the notice. <strong>The defect goes to the root of the jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal2\">\nThe same view has been taken in <strong>Impsat<\/strong> 91 ITD 354 (Del), <strong>Modi Corp<\/strong> 105 TTJ (Del) 303, <strong>Pampsar<\/strong> 15 SOT 331 (Kol) &#038; <strong>Makers Development<\/strong> 40 ITD 185 (Mum)\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The law is well settled that the jurisdiction to reopen a proceeding depends upon issue of a valid notice. If the notice is not properly issued, the proceedings are ultra vires. A notice issued on a non-existent person is void. The fact that the assessee has filed a return in response to the notice makes no difference<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/i-k-agencies-pvt-ltd-vs-wto-calcutta-high-court-reopening-notice-issued-to-amalgamating-co-void-not-saved-by-s-292b\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[4,5],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3008","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-all-judgements","category-high-court"],"acf":[],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3008","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3008"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3008\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3008"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3008"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/archives\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3008"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}