Ultima Realtors Pvt. Ltd. v. ITO
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal, tax, accounting, investment or other professional advice and is not a substitute for advice on the user's specific facts. The Finin2min summary, Q&A, reliance profile, fact-match indicators, comparisons and practical takeaways are editorial analysis and are not part of the Court/Tribunal judgment. Before citing, filing, advising or acting on a case, read the complete official judgment/order, verify the cause title, case number, coram, date, applicable statutory text and jurisdiction, and check subsequent appellate history, review/SLP status and later amendments. A similar fact pattern does not guarantee the same outcome. No advocate-client, CA-client or other professional relationship is created by use of this page.
Case in 2 minutes
The reported case concerns reassessment/appellate proceedings involving a company whose name had been struck off. It raises the distinct questions of proceeding against a non-existent entity and the entity's ability to prosecute tax litigation.
Case snapshot
Sections / provisions: 147; 148
Questions before the Court / Tribunal
- Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent: The reported case concerns reassessment/appellate proceedings involving a company whose name had been struck off. It raises the distinct questions of proceeding against a non-existent entity and the entity's ability to prosecute tax litigation.
Material facts and background
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its
return of income on 30/09/2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/11/2014. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28/03/2016 which was also processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25/04/2016. 5.
The assessment was reopened u/s 147 of the Act after recording
reasons and obtaining approval of the competent authority vide notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 31/03/2021. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee raised objections to the notice u/s 148 of the Act as the same was issued on the company which was
not in existence at that point of time. Records show that the name of the company was struck off on 23/06/2018, therefore, the notice issued on 31/03/2021 is in the name of non-existing entity. 6.
The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal as the appeal was filed by a
non-est company whereas the grievance of the assessee is that the assessment order itself has been passed on a non-existing company. 7.
Appellant / assessee submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Revenue / respondent submissions
The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.
Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning
perused. On perusal of the order of the ld. CIT(A) we find that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable. 4.
not in existence at that point of time. Records show that the name of the company was struck off on 23/06/2018, therefore, the notice issued on 31/03/2021 is in the name of non-existing entity. 6.
Operative decision and relief
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June, 2025 at Mumbai.
*SC SrPs आदे श की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.
Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment
- No reliable precedent list was extracted automatically; use the full judgment for the citation chain.
This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.
Ratio and legal principle
The decision turns on Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Why this judgment matters
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
Practitioner action points
- Reconstruct the reassessment timeline: original assessment, section 148A notice/reply, approval authority, notice date and the applicable section 149 limitation window.
- Preserve the complete response to section 148A(b), objections and proof of disposal; jurisdictional defects are often decided from the documentary chronology.
- For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.
Do not over-read this case
- The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy
- Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result.
- Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
How to apply this decision in practice
This ITAT Mumbai decision should be used by matching the client’s facts to the precise controversy in the case—Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent—rather than by relying only on the result. Start with the statutory version applicable to the relevant year and compare it with 147, 148. Amendments, notifications, later Supreme Court/High Court decisions and a different procedural stage can materially change the answer.
For an assessment or litigation file, retain the documents that prove the factual bridge on which the judgment turns: the original notice/order, replies and objections, acknowledgements of filing/service, ledger and banking trail where relevant, contracts or property instruments where relevant, and the complete appellate chronology. If the case succeeds on jurisdiction or natural justice, do not assume the same outcome where the authority cures that defect. If it succeeds on evidence, identify exactly which documents the Court or Tribunal considered persuasive.
For reassessment/search matters, preserve the original reasons/information, section 148A show-cause and reply, sanction/approval, service trail, search panchnama and the material said to be incriminating. The jurisdictional timeline often matters as much as the quantum issue.
Finin2min reliance rule: cite the case for the narrow legal proposition actually decided, record any contrary authority, and attach the full judgment to the working paper or litigation file. This reduces the risk of a headnote or short summary being used outside its factual and statutory context.
Verification before citation
Because this is a comparatively short order, the practical value lies in its precise procedural and factual setting rather than its length. Before citing it, compare the complete paper-book chronology, the statutory wording for the relevant year, the forum’s jurisdiction and any later appellate history. A short order can be decisive, but only for the proposition actually adjudicated. Finin2min therefore provides the full judgment PDF alongside this note so the primary reasoning can be checked rather than inferred from the summary alone.
Case-specific verification matrix
Proposition being tested: Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. A practitioner should write the proposition in one sentence before citing this decision and then verify that the client’s facts engage the same statutory trigger. The relevant provisions recorded for this case are 147, 148. If the client is under a different statutory version, assessment year, notification regime or appellate stage, the conclusion may not travel automatically.
Factual match: compare the documents that created the dispute, the authority’s stated reason for the adjustment/action, the taxpayer’s contemporaneous response and the evidentiary gap the forum treated as decisive. Record which facts are identical, which are only similar and which are materially different. This prevents a result-based citation from replacing the actual ratio.
Procedural match: confirm limitation, jurisdiction, service, opportunity of hearing and the stage at which the issue was decided. A writ order, remand, stay order, penalty appeal, search assessment and merits quantum appeal answer different legal questions even where they mention the same section.
Current-law check: before filing or advising, verify subsequent appellate history and later binding authority. The local full judgment supplied with this article is the starting point; the official issuing-authority copy and current statutory text remain the final reliance documents.
Finin2min Judgment Intelligence
Decision support built around the judgment: reliance, fact match, Q&A, section impact, related-case network and practical next steps.
Can I rely on this judgment?
| Authority level | ITAT |
|---|---|
| Reliance effect | Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. |
| Source integrity | A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending. |
| Subsequent history | Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. |
| Finin2min status | Later-history check open |
Does this case match your facts?
Stronger match when
- Your dispute raises the same core issue: Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent.
- The same statutory provisions or materially equivalent provisions apply: 147, 148.
- Your matter is at a comparable reassessment stage.
- Your documentary/evidentiary record is materially similar to the facts the ITAT Mumbai considered: Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/11/2014.
- The same legal regime or assessment-period rules relevant to AY 2014-15 apply to your matter.
Weaker / distinguishable when
- A later Supreme Court or jurisdictional High Court ruling changes the legal position.
- The statutory provision was amended for your year or transaction.
- Your evidence, transaction structure, notice chronology or procedural stage differs on a fact the judgment treated as material.
- The case succeeded on a narrow jurisdictional/procedural defect that the authority has cured in your matter.
Questions this judgment answers
What was the main dispute in Ultima Realtors Pvt. Ltd.?
The reported case concerns reassessment/appellate proceedings involving a company whose name had been struck off. It raises the distinct questions of proceeding against a non-existent entity and the entity's ability to prosecute tax litigation.
Which facts mattered most to the result?
Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income on 30/09/2014 which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 27/11/2014. Thereafter the assessee filed a revised return of income on 28/03/2016 which was also processed u/s 143(1) of the Act on 25/04/2016. 5.
What did the ITAT Mumbai ultimately decide?
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 20th June, 2025 at Mumbai. *SC SrPs आदे श की ितिलिप अेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2.
What legal principle can be taken from this judgment?
The decision turns on Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Which provisions should be checked before relying on the case?
The case engages 147, 148. The relevant statutory version for AY 2014-15 should be checked together with any later amendment, notification, circular and controlling higher-court authority.
When is this judgment most useful to a taxpayer or adviser?
The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent . Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.
What could make this judgment distinguishable or unsafe to rely on?
The packaged PDF is not yet an issuing-authority certified copy Apply the statutory law applicable to the relevant year; later amendments can change the result. Check whether a later High Court or Supreme Court judgment has affirmed, distinguished, reversed or superseded this decision.
Can this judgment be cited as current law without another check?
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work. A sanitized local full-text judgment copy is packaged; official-primary replacement remains pending.
Section / provision impact
- 147 — 147 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
- 148 — 148 is part of the statutory framework considered in the context of proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. Read the exact provision applicable to the relevant year with the Court/Tribunal reasoning.
How the decision changes your analysis
Before using this authority, frame the issue under 147, 148 and identify the decisive facts/evidence. The result should not be assumed from the case title alone.
The decision turns on Proceedings against company struck off/non-existent. The operative result is classified as Operative order controls. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.
Tribunal precedent. Persuasive for similar facts; subject to the jurisdictional High Court and Supreme Court. Coordinate-Bench discipline should be checked. Subsequent appellate history is not fully closed in the current ledger. Recheck before filing or opinion work.
Case network: similar and different outcomes
Closest related cases in the Finin2min repository
Related cases with a different result
Related-case links are repository similarity connections, not a claim that one judgment cites or overrules another. Use the cited-authority list and later-history check for formal precedent analysis.
Working-paper citation
Full judgment and source trail
Read / download the clean local judgment copy
| Packaged source class | SANITIZED_LOCAL_FULL_JUDGMENT_COPY_PRIMARY_PENDING |
|---|---|
| Pages | 3 |
| SHA-256 | 7de847ce9af73b925157bdefe3fdd412084d410115579b6c01afd583a642ff22 |
| Original source URL | Not exposed publicly. Original provenance retained only in the private source-closure ledger. |
| Source authentication | Sanitized local full-text copy - official primary replacement pending |