The notice dt. 31-3-2021 under section 148 of the Act was issued on the company which was ceased to exist.\u00a0 The petitioner has filed the return filed earlier and also objections to the reopening and one of the objection was\u00a0 the entity was not in existence on 31-3-2021 and Scope had merged with\u00a0 petitioner by virtue\u00a0 of order dated 30-9-2019 passed by NCLT. Not with standing this the Revenue rejected the petitioner\u2019s plea\u00a0 by order dt. 3-2-2022. The petitioner filed writ against the rejection order. Allowing the petition the Court held that, the basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation and notice issued to non-existing company, is not curable defect under Section 292-B of the Act. Notice under which jurisdiction was assumed by the Assessing Officer was issued to the non-existing company which amounts to substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292-B of the Act. Accordingly the reassessment notice\u00a0\u00a0 and order disposing the objection was quashed. Followed\u00a0 PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC), Alok Knit Exports Ltd v. Dy. CIT\u00a0 (2021) 283 Taxman 221 \/ (2022) 446 ITR 748 (Bom) (HC)\u00a0\u00a0 (WP No. 6728 of 2022, dt. 29-4-22) \u00a0(AY. 2013-2014)<\/p>\n