PVR LIMITED Vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.Niranjan Reddy, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Rohit Pogula, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for Sri K.Raji Reddy, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

(2.) In this Writ Petition, notice bearing F.No.DCIT 14(1)/ AABCC7343L/2019-20 dt.28-10-2019 issued under Section 226(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') is challenged wherein it is stated that a sum of Rs.11,21,08,090/- is due from the assessee / predecessor of petitioner to 1st respondent, and the 3rd respondent, who is the Banker of the Assessee, was directed to withhold the said amount available in the mentioned account number of the assessee.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner contends that during the 2014-15 financial year, a sale was effected by the assessee of its undertaking to a third party; that the assessee came to be amalgamated with the petitioner w.e.f. 17-08-2018 during the financial year 2017-18 under a scheme of arrangement sanctioned by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi Bench dt.23-08-2019; and therefore the assessee SPI Cinemas Private Limited ceases to exist.