REPORTABLE IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 2922 OF 2019 (Arising out of S.L.P.(C) No.10639 of 2017) Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur .Appellant(s) VERSUS M/s Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt.Ltd. .Respondent(s) JUDGMENT Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1. Leave granted. Signature Not Verified 2. This appeal is filed against final judgment Digitally signed by ANITA MALHOTRA Date: 2019.03.12 16:36:19 IST Reason: and order dated 09.08.2016 passed by High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in 1 1 DBITA No.53 of 2000 whereby High Court dismissed appeal as having become infructuous filed by appellant herein. 3. appeal involves short question as would be clear from facts stated infra. 4. appellant is Union of India Income Tax Department. respondent is assessee in appeal out of which this appeal arises. 5. appellant herein filed appeal under Section 260 of Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as Act ) in High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur bench) against order dated 28.04.2000 of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No 226/JP/1999. 6. By impugned order, High Court dismissed appeal as having rendered infructuous giving rise to filing of this appeal by way of special leave by Income Tax Department in this Court. impugned order reads as under: 2 2 n last date of hearing when matter cam up before Court on 05.07.2016, counsel for appellant was directed to seek instructions about present status of Respondent assessee (Company) whether it is in existence or has become non operational or defunct by passage of time. Sh. Anuroop Singhi, Adv., appearing for appellant has placed for our perusal communication issued from office of Registrar of Companies dated 07.04.2011 indicating that pursuant to sub section(5) of Section 560 of Companies Act, 1956 name of Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt. Ltd., has been struck off from register and said company is dissolved. In light of communication placed for our perusal dated 07.04.2011, no purpose is going to be served in examining substantial question of law which has been raised for consideration in instant appeal and on account of these change in circumstances, present appeal has become infructuous and accordingly stands dismissed. However, appellant is still at liberty to file application if any occasion arises in future. 7. short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether High Court was justified in dismissing appeal filed by Income Tax Department on ground that it has rendered infructuous. 3 3 8. Mr. A.N.S. Nadkarni, learned ASG appeared for appellant. None appeared for respondent (assessee) though served. 9. Having heard learned counsel for appellant (Income Tax Department) and on perusal of record of case, we are constrained to allow appeal, set aside impugned order and remand case to High Court for deciding appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law. 10. Mere perusal of impugned order quoted supra would go to show that High Court dismissed appeal on ground that it has rendered infructuous because it was brought to its notice that name of company respondent assessee has been struck off from Register of Company under Section 560(5) of Companies Act, 1956. 11. In other words, High Court was of view that since respondent Company stands 4 4 dissolved as result of order passed by Registrar of Companies under Section 560 (5) of Companies Act, appeal filed against such Company which stands dissolved does not survive for its consideration on merits. 12. In our view, High Court was wrong in dismissing appeal as having rendered infructuous. 13. High Court failed to notice Section 506(5) proviso (a) of Companies Act and further failed to notice Chapter XV of Income Tax Act which deals with "liability in special cases" and its clause (L) which deals with "discontinuance of business or dissolution". 14. aforementioned two provisions, namely, one under Companies Act and other under Income Tax Act specifically deal with cases of Companies, whose name has been struck off under Section 506 (5) of Companies Act. 5 5 15. These provisions provide as to how and in what manner liability against such Company arising under Companies Act and under Income Tax Act is required to be dealt with. 16. Since High Court did not decide appeal keeping in view aforementioned two relevant provisions, impugned order is not legally sustainable and has to be set aside. 17. In view of foregoing discussion, appeal succeeds and is accordingly allowed. impugned order is set aside. case is remanded to High Court for deciding appeal afresh on merits in accordance with law keeping in view relevant provisions of Companies Act and Income tax Act uninfluenced by any observations made by us on merits. 18. Indeed, having formed opinion to remand case for reasons mentioned above, we refrain ourselves from making any observation on 6 6 merits of controversy involved in this appeal. Since appeal is quite old, we request High Court to decide appeal preferably within six months. . ...................................J. [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE] ... ..................................J. [DINESH MAHESHWARI] New Delhi; March 12, 2019 7 7 Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur v. Gopal Shri Scrips Pvt.Ltd