High Court erred in dismissing appeal of Revenue as infructuous because respondent company had been struck off by the RoC – Supreme Court
ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2825 (2019) (03) SC
The instant appeal was filed by the appellant Revenue against the order of the High Court in dismissing the appeal filed by the Income Tax Department on the ground that it had rendered infructuous owing to the fact that the respondent assessee had been struck off from the Register of the Company under Section 560(5) of the Companies Act, 1956.
The appellant Department had filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961(the Act) against the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).
Ón the last date of hearing when the matter came up before the High Court, the counsel or the appellant, on instruction of the High Court placed a communication from the office of Registrar of Companies (ROC) informing that pursuant to sub section (5) of Section 560 of the Companies Act, 1956, the name of the respondent company had been struck off from the register and the said company was dissolved.
In the light of the said communication the Hon’ble High Court opined that no purpose was going to be served in examining the substantial question of law which had been raised for its consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue as having become infructuous.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the High Court was wrong in dismissing the appeal as having rendered infructuous.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the High Court failed to notice
(a) Section 506(5) proviso (a) of the Companies Act and
(b) Chapter XV of the Income Tax Act which deals with “liability in special cases” and its clause (L) – Discontinuance of business or dissolution which comprises of the following three sections:
(i) Section 176 – Discontinued business
(ii) Section 177 – Association dissolved or business discontinued
(iii) Section 178 – Company in liquidation
The Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the said two provisions provide as to how and in what manner the liability against such Company arising under the Companies Act and under the Income Tax Act is required to be dealt with.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court opined that the High Court did not decide the appeal keeping in view the aforementioned two relevant provisions, the impugned order was not legally sustainable and has to be set aside.
Accordingly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the Revenue and set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the High Court for deciding the appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law.
Non issuance of notice u/s 143(2) for return filed u/s 148 even though belatedly, makes the assessment framed bad in…
Calculation of functional disability depends on assessing the victim’s earning capacity in the open, competitive market – Supreme Court In…
Appeal against every decision of ITAT shall lie only before the High Court within whose jurisdiction the Assessing Officer who…
Supreme Court recommends action against Commissioner of Customs who relied upon non-existent AI generated case laws. Supreme Court recommends action…
ITAT power to pass such orders "as it thinks fit" implies a judicial discretion to be exercised within the parameters…
Mere non-deduction of TDS by the deductor on a transaction does not change the character of the transaction to make…