Allowed

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3) (2) and 3 Others

Bombay HC22 Sept 2021WP/3556/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Bombay quashed notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to Vahanvati Consultants and Safari Mercantile, deeming them non-existent entities, relying on precedent regarding notices issued to non-existing companies.

What did the court decide?

The notice dated 31st March 2019 and consequent proceedings against the petitioner and merged entities were quashed and set aside.

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. Vs Assistant Commissioner of… — Income Tax | Bombay HC (2021)

¶1

Digitally signed by GAURI GAURI AMIT GAEKWAD AMIT Date: GAEKWAD 2021.09.23 10:48:45 +0530

¶2

903.WP-3562-2019.doc

¶3

1 / 3

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.3562 OF 2019

¶6

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner

¶7

 V/s.

¶8

Income Tax Officer – 7 (2) (1), Mumbai & Ors. ….Respondents
WITH

¶9

WRIT PETITION NO.3556 OF 2019

¶10

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. ….Petitioner

¶11

 V/s.

¶12

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax
2 (3) (2) and Ors. ….Respondents

¶13

----

¶14

Mr. Madhur Agrawal i/b. Mr. Atul K. Jasani for petitioner.
Mr. Suresh Kumar for respondents.

¶15

 ----
 CORAM : K.R. SHRIRAM &
 M.S. KARNIK, JJ.
 DATED : 22nd SEPTEMBER 2021

¶16

P.C. :

¶17

WRIT PETITION NO.3562 OF 2019

¶18

1In this petition, petitioner is praying for setting aside the show

¶19

cause notice dated 31st March 2019. It is petitioner’s case in nutshell, that

¶20

the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) has
been issued to a non existing company and therefore, as held by this Court
as well as the Apex Court in various judgments, the notice is bad in law.

¶21

2There was another entity by the name ECD Electrons and
Electrolysis Pvt. Ltd. which was merged with petitioner. Even in that case,
notice has been issued to ECD Electrons and Electrolysis Pvt. Ltd and this

¶22

Gauri Gaekwad

¶23

903.WP-3562-2019.doc

¶24

2 / 3

¶25

Court in its order dated 11th August 2021 in Writ Petition No.2828 of 2019
(Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax,
Central Circle – 2 (1) (2), Mumbai and Ors.) held that the notice issued and
the consequent order passed in that order were bad and had set aside the
same. Mr. Agrawal states that this Court in Writ Petition No.2742 of 2019 by
judgment dated 10th August 2021 (Alok Knit Exports Limited V/s. The
Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6 (1) (1) and Ors.) also held
that the notice issued to a non existent company is bad in law.

¶26

3Mr. Suresh Kumar states that he had appeared in Writ Petition
No.2828 of 2019 where the same petitioner was involved.

¶27

4In the circumstances, the notice dated 31st March 2019 having
being issued to an entity, which had ceased to exist, is hereby quashed and
set aside.

¶28

5Petition disposed.

¶29

WRIT PETITION NO.3556 OF 2019

¶30

6The order passed above in Writ Petition No.3562 of 2019 will
be applicable in this case in its entirety except that the merged entity, to
which the notice was issued, is Safari Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.

¶31

7Therefore, in this petition also the notice dated 31st March 2019
is quashed and set aside.

¶32

Gauri Gaekwad

¶33

903.WP-3562-2019.doc

¶34

3 / 3

¶35

8Petition disposed.

¶36

(M.S. KARNIK, J.) (K.R. SHRIRAM, J.)

¶37

Gauri Gaekwad

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3) (2) and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt. Ltd. v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 2(3) (2) and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Commissioner of Income TAX-9 Vs M/S Globatronix (Bombay) Pvt. Ltd.

Wavy Construction LLP Vs Asst.Commissioner of Income TAX,CIRCLE-22(3) and 2 Ors.

Anil Kumar R. Bansal Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income TAX-13(3)

Premlata Mohan Agarwal Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.

Vahanvati Consultants Pvt.Ltd. Vs Income-Tax OFFICER-7(2)(1), Mumbai and 2 Ors.

Darsan Jitendra Jhaveri Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and 2 Ors.