On a writ petition challenging the validity of assessment orders passed in the name of non-existent entities and several connected Income-tax appeals, the issue arose whether the court could frame an additional substantial question of law not raised before the Tribunal, held, that the question was whether the factum of the merger was intimated to the Assessing Officer or whether he was otherwise aware of this fact before making the assessment orders. There was no question of prejudice as such. The additional question, “whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order under Section 143(3) passed on a non-existent entity is bad in law, void ab initio ?”, as proposed by the assessee, was involved In these appeals, and, therefore, the question was framed in all these appeals. The issue of whether the assessee’s case was fully covered by the decision of the Supreme Court was a question that had to be decided once the additional substantial question as proposed was framed. If answered in favour of the assessee, the proposed question would go to the root of jurisdiction. Referred  Veena Estate Pvt Ltd  v. CIT (2024) 461 ITR 483 (Bom)(HC).Refer Reliance Industries Ltd v.  P.L. Roongta  (2025) 479 ITR 770 (Bom)(HC).   (AY. 1993-94 to 1995-96)