Mr. Sidharth Sinha, SSC with Mr. A. Pethia, Mr. Dacchita Sahi, JSCs, Mr. Srikant v. HCP PETROCHEM PVT. LTD

O R D E R 12.02.2025 The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax impugns the order of the % 1. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [„ITAT‟] dated 13 December 2017. We had by an order dated 19 November 2018 admitted the appeal on the following question of law: "Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in annulling Assessment Order - M/s. HCP Petro Pvt. Ltd. (merged with IP India Ltd.) now known as Adhunik Technology Pvt. Ltd.")? the assessment, notwithstanding title of

2. Learned counsels for parties are ad idem that the question on which this appeal came to be admitted stands conclusively answered in favour of the assessee in light of our judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax-7 v. Vedanta Ltd [2025 SCC OnLine Del 178]. 3. We had in Vedanta Ltd. while dealing with an identical question held as follows: This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:07:50 “13. In International Hospital, we had an occasion to notice the decision of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki in extenso and where the distinguishable facts which underpinned its judgment in Sky Light had been duly noted. It would be apposite to extract the following passages from our judgment in International Hospital: - “13. According to the writ petitioners, the challenge on grounds noticed above is no longer res integra and stands conclusively answered by the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki. It becomes pertinent to note that the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki had come to be rendered on an appeal which arose from a judgment of this Court and which while upholding the decision rendered by the Tribunal had held that an assessment made in the name of Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd., and which had evidently under an approved Scheme amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., was a nullity. On facts it emerged that MSIL had duly intimated the AO of the amalgamation prior to the case being selected for scrutiny assessment. Notwithstanding information being available, the AO appears to have framed a draft assessment order in the name of SPIL. **** the Revenue

17. In Maruti Suzuki it appears to have been urged by and on in Spice behalf of Entertainment would not hold good in light of the decision which our High Court had pronounced in Sky Light Hospitality and which had come to be affirmed by the Supreme Court. Dealing with the aforesaid contention, the Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki observed as follows: the decision “28. The submission, however, which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] which was affirmed on 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] by a two- Judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan. In assessing the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6- 4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 : (Skylight Hospitality SCC 147] of case[Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147], SCC p. 147, para 1) the merits of this Court “1. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:07:50 corrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of.” rights and Now, it is evident from the above extract that it was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court indicated its agreement that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error, capable of being corrected under Section 292-B. The “peculiar facts” of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the decision of the Delhi High Court [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296]. Skylight Hospitality, an LLP, had taken over on 13-5-2016 and acquired liabilities of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (the LLP Act, 2008). It instituted writ proceedings for challenging a notice under Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act dated 30-3-2017 for AY 2010-2011. The “reasons to believe” made a reference to a tax evasion report received from the investigation unit of the Income Tax Department. The facts were ascertained by the investigation unit. The reasons to believe referred to the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the findings recorded in it. Though the notice under Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to exist upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Court held “substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record” to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake. The tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PAN number of LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents. The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in this background that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview of Section 292-B for the following reasons : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296], SCC OnLine Del para 18) “18. … There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:07:50 letter appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11-4- 2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said they had indicates understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was replied and dealt with by them. The fact that notice was addressed to M/s. Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.” in Spice Entertainment [Spice 29. The decision Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] was distinguished with : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296], SCC OnLine Del para 19) following observations “19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment v. CIT [ This judgment has also been referred to as Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del)]. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the assessing officer was informed about amalgamation but the assessment order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of assessment order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal.”

30. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6-4- 2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] in the special leave petition filed by Skylight This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/02/2025 at 12:07:50 Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292-B. The [Skylight in Skylight Hospitality LLP decision Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : (2018) 405 ITR 296] has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in: (i) Rajender Kumar Sehgal [Rajender Kumar Sehgal v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12890]; (ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel [Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Guj 4812]; (iii) Alamelu Veerappan [Alamelu Veerappan v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Mad 13593]. in Spice Enfotainment