JUDGMENT : BHARGAV D. KARIA, J. 1. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mohit R. Balani for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy arising in the petition which is in narrow compass, with the consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of rule on behalf of the respondents. 4. The petitioner M/s. Jay Prabhu Industries LLP, which was formerly a partnership firm known as ‘M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries’ has challenged the legality of the assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (For Short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2016-17 in the name of erstwhile partnership firm along with notice issued under Section 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2021 in name of the partnership firm. 5. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 5.1. The petitioner M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries, LLP was formed on 23.04.2014 on conversion from M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries a partnership firm as per the provisions of Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008. The petitioner firm filed the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2015-16 which was assessed and the assessment order was passed on 08.12.2017 under Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner firm received a notice dated 27.03.2021 under Section 148 of the Act issued in the name of erstwhile partnership firm to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2016-17. 5.1. The petitioner was provided with the reasons recorded along with the notice dated 28.06.2021 under Section 143(2) of the Act which reveals that the notice for reopening was issued on the ground that the erstwhile partnership firm did not file the Return of Income for the Assessment Year 2016-17 and as per the information available on ITBA/e-filing/ insight portal, it was seen that the transaction made in the bank account of the erstwhile partnership firm does not commensurate with the income profile of the assessee and, therefore, there is an escapement of income of Rs.2,54,53,209/- as the source and nature of import transactions were not disclosed by the erstwhile partnership firm. 5.2. 5.2. The petitioner filed reply to such notice on 05.07.2021, after receipt of reasons for reopening of the assessment of the erstwhile partnership firm for the Assessment Year 2016-17 informing the respondent Assessing Officer that since 23.04.2014 the petitioner firm is registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 and certificate of registration on conversion was also issued by the Registrar of Companies in Form-19 under Rule 32(1) of the LLP Rules, 2009. The petitioner also provided the copy of certificate along with the reply. The petitioner also disclosed in the reply that the petitioner had filed all the Returns of Income for the new PAN issued to the petitioner LLP firm and for Assessment Year 2016-17 and the Return of Income was filed on 21.09.2016. The petitioner also submitted all the details of the Trading Account, Profit and Loss Account, Capital Account, Balance Sheet for the Assessment Year 2016- 17 along with the copies of all Bank Accounts and bills of entries filed during the year. 5.3. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had mentioned the PAN of LLP firm in all bills of entries and same are correctly reported in books of accounts. The petitioner therefore, requested that no assessment can be made in the hands of erstwhile partners which has ceased to exist with effect from 23.04.2014. The petitioner also contended that the petitioner has disclosed all the transactions in the books of accounts of LLP firm and, therefore, there cannot be any addition of income and the petitioner has filed Return of Income disclosing all the transactions. The petitioner also requested for opportunity of hearing through video conference after receipt of the show cause notice for proposed addition on 21.03.2022 by making a request on the portal on 23.03.2022. However, the Assessing Officer has passed the impugned order on 28.03.2022 in the name of the erstwhile partnership firm i.e. M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries for Assessment Year 2016-17 ignoring the details and the documents submitted by the petitioner by invoking Section 69A of the Act and made addition of Rs.2,54,53,209/- as recorded in the reasons for reopening. 5.4. Learned advocate Mr. 5.4. Learned advocate Mr. Mohit R. Balani for the petitioner submitted that the respondent Assessing Officer could not have proceeded with the assessment in name of the partnership firm which is not in existence with effect from 23.04.2014 and, therefore, the Asssessment Order is void and without jurisdiction as it was passed in the name of erstwhile firm which ceased to exist upon conversion to an LLP. It was submitted that inspite of informing the respondent Assessing Officer about conversion of the partnership firm into LLP after issuance of the notice for reopening, the impugned order was passed without acknowledging such facts disclosed by the petitioner in the replies filed in response to the notices issued under Section 142(1) of the Act. 6. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr. Mohit Balani relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. , reported in [2019] 107 Taxmann.com 375 (SC) wherein it is held that the Assessment Order passed in the name of non-existent amalgamated company are void ab initio as the amalgamating entity ceases to exist in law upon amalgamation. Relying upon such finding it was submitted that when the erstwhile partnership firm was converted into LLP, the respondent Assessing Officer could not have initiated the reopening proceedings resulting into the impugned Assessment Order. 6.1. Learned advocate Mr. Mohit Balani also referred to and relied upon the decision of this Court in case of Dhruvnesh Vijaykumar Patel v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax rendered in Special Civil Application No. 11756 of 2020 with Special Civil Application No. 12196 of 2020 dated 11.06.2020 and the decision of the Madras High Court in case of NRP Projects (P) Ltd. v. Additional/Joint/Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, reported in [2024] 162 Taxman.com 71 (Madras). It was also pointed out that the respondent Assessing Officer has violated the principles of natural justice by not granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner inspite of praying for video conference on 23.03.2022. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Assessment Order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same is passed against non-existent partnership firm. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents could not controvert the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. It was, therefore, submitted that the impugned Assessment Order is liable to be quashed and set aside as the same is passed against non-existent partnership firm. 7. On the other hand, learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents could not controvert the submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Mohit Balani and relied upon the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents on the following averments :- “3. At the outset, I most respectfully submit that the petitioner has challenged the impugned assessment order dated 28.03.2022 passed under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for A.Y. 2016-17. I further say that there is an alternative efficacious remedy available under the law. In other words, the petitioner if aggrieved by the impugned assessment order can file an appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter to the Appellate Tribunal. It is a settled law that the person aggrieved cannot abandon the statutory mechanism stipulated under the Act. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chhabildas Agarwal (357 ITR 357). Hence, on this limited ground, the challenge to the assessment order may kindly be rejected. 4. The petitioner has contended that Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries (Firm) was converted into LLP w.e.f. 23.04.2014 and the impugned assessment order is passed against the non-existing firm, and, therefore, the same is bad in law. I submit that assessee has not followed the procedure to inform the department about conversion of Partnership Firm into LLP. No intimation was submitted by the assessee to the Income Tax department and the Bank. The assessee is duty bound to inform the department and Bank upon Conversion/dissolution of Partnership Firm to LLP. Neither the assessee has informed the department about conversion of Partnership firm (M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries having PAN AAFFJ3924K) to LLP (Jay Prabhu Industries having new PAN AAKFJ1464H) and nor surrendered the PAN of the partnership firm to the department for deactivation. From the above, it is clear that assessee is having undue advantage from the PAN of dissolved partnership firm as transactions of bill of entry of Rs.2,54,53,209/- are still refelected in the firm PAN-AAFFJ3924K in the AIR/CIB information in the ITBA Portan under AIIMS Module for the year under consideration. From the above, it is clear that assessee is having undue advantage from the PAN of dissolved partnership firm as transactions of bill of entry of Rs.2,54,53,209/- are still refelected in the firm PAN-AAFFJ3924K in the AIR/CIB information in the ITBA Portan under AIIMS Module for the year under consideration. Status of the PAN of the assessee in the Income Tax Department PAN module is ACTIVE. I further submit that the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2015-16 in the name of non- existent firm. In response to Section 148 notice issued for A.Y. 2016-17, a return of income came to be filed in the name of non-existent firm. Furthermore, response to Section 142(1) notice is also made in the name of non-existing firm. I submit that the assessee has acquiesced to the jurisdiction of assessing officer. Therefore, the contention of petitioner lacks merit and does not deserve any consideration. 5. The petitioner has further contended that no show cause-cum-draft assessment order as required under Section 144B of the Act was served and therefore, the impugned assessment order is bad in law. I submit that adequate opportunities were granted to the petitioner coupled with the fact that the impugned assessment order has been framed after considering and analyzing the evidences produced by the petitioner during the course of assessment. I submit that no draft assessment order was provided to the assessee but a show cause notice dated 21.03.2022 was issued to the assessee, contents thereof is as under :- “Whether your conversation has been duly intimated to the department and Bank. If yes, communicate the date of intimation along with copy of the letter through which intimate and copy of KYC submitted to the bank. As it is time barred proceedings you reply should be furnished within three days from the date of receipt of this notice/letter.” The assessee was also requested to show cause as to why the proposed variation should not be made and the assessment should not be completed accordingly. However, the assessee has not filed any reply. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, all replies filed by the assessee was duly considered and verified and noted. The assessee has totally failed to explain whether the conversation was duly intimated to the department and Bank. However, the assessee has not filed any reply. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, all replies filed by the assessee was duly considered and verified and noted. The assessee has totally failed to explain whether the conversation was duly intimated to the department and Bank. The assessee has not communicated the date of intimation along with copy of the letter through which such intimation and copy of KYC submitted to the bank. The assessee was provided sufficient opportunities vide notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 18.11.2021, 11.01.2022 and show cause notice/letter dated 21.03.2022 to explain t he issue. However, the assessee failed to explain the same. Therefore, the assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment, New Delhi under Section 147 read with Section 144B of the Act on 28.03.2022 as the matter was getting time barred on 31.03.2022. Hence, there is no violation of procedure laid down under the provisions of Section 144B of the Act. 7. With regard to the contention of Video Conferencing having not been granted, it is submitted that video conference hearing can be granted if chosen on system after issuance of the show cause letter. The assessee has not chosen the VC on system and hence, it could not be granted to the assessee.” 8. Referring to the above averments, it was submitted that no interference is required to be made in the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer as the petitioner has an alternative efficacious remedy to challenge the same before the CIT (Appeals). 9. Having heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and considering the facts of the case, it is not in dispute that the erstwhile partnership firm M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries Pvt. Ltd., was converted into LLP on 23.04.2014. Therefore, the partnership firm had ceased to exist from the said date. It also appears from the record that the petitioner LLP has filed the Returns of Income for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 disclosing all the transactions which are referred to in the notice for reopening pertaining to filing of bill of entries. Therefore, the partnership firm had ceased to exist from the said date. It also appears from the record that the petitioner LLP has filed the Returns of Income for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 disclosing all the transactions which are referred to in the notice for reopening pertaining to filing of bill of entries. It appears that the respondent Assessing Officer without considering the reply filed by the petitioner by ignoring the fact that M/s. Jay Prabhu Cotton Industries was converted into LLP with effect from 23.04.2014 and has proceeded to pass the impugned assessment order in name of partnership firm for Assessment Year 2016-17 by observing as under :- “All the documents furnish by the assessee in favour of his new PAN. The assessee failed to produce any documents in favour of his old PAN. Morevoer, for the natural of justice a show cause dated 21.03.2022 was issued and serve to the assessee on tehs ame date fixing the date of hearing on or before 24.03.2022 where the assessee was requested to explain that you are hereby requested to explain why you have filed return of income for the assessment year 2015-16 in old PAN though new LLP was formed on 23.04.2014. Whether your conversation has been duly intimated to the department and Bank. If yes, communicate the date of intimation along with copy of the letter through which intimate and copy of KYC submitted to the Bank. As it is time barred proceeding your reply should be furnished to this office within three days from the date of reeipt of this notice/letter. In response to the notice the assessee furnish a written submission in PDF folders on 23.03.2022 but error “failed to load PDF documents”. It is clear the assessee willingly submit error folder actually the assessee has nothing to say. But I have no other option the case is barred by limitation on 31.03.2022. Therefore, the source and nature of import transactions of Rs.2,54,53,209/- during the F.Y. 2015-16 remains unaccounted/unexplained and the assessee has no proper explanation. Moreover, the assessee failed to file return of income. Keeping in view the above,I am satisfied that the case of assessee is covered under Section 69A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : [Unexplained money, etc. Moreover, the assessee failed to file return of income. Keeping in view the above,I am satisfied that the case of assessee is covered under Section 69A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 which is reproduced hereunder for ready reference : [Unexplained money, etc. 69A-Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the [Assessing] Officer satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year.] As discussed above, the source and nature of import transactions of Rs.2,54,53,209/- during the F.Y. 2015-16 have not been explained at all, leave alone satisfactory explanation and as such the conditions invoking the provisions of section 69A are satisfied in this case. Therefore, considering the above legal position and the facts and circumstances of the case, it is established that the assessee has import transactions of Rs.2,54,53,209/- but soruce of fund not clear. Hence, considered it is ‘unexplained money’ during the previous year 2015- 16 relevant tot he assessment year 2016-17. Accordingly, the entire import transactions of Rs.2,54,53,209/- during the F.Y. 2015-16 relevant to A.Y. 2016-17 is treated as unexplained money and is therefore, deemed as income of the assessee under section 69A of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. Tax to be calculated under Section 115BBE of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961. Further, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The assessee has not filed its Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17, therefore, penalty under section 271F of the Act is also initiated for failure to furnish return of income.” 11. Further, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1) (c) of the Act in respect of furnishing inaccurate particular of income. The assessee has not filed its Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 for A.Y. 2016-17, therefore, penalty under section 271F of the Act is also initiated for failure to furnish return of income.” 11. The above observations made by the Assessing Officer are contrary to the facts of the case on face of it inasmuch as though it is recorded by the Assessing Officer that the partnership firm was converted into LLP on 23.04.2014, it was not accepted only on the ground that the same was not informed to the department and absence of any document showing the copy of KYC submitted by the petitioner to the Bank. However, the respondent Assessing Officer has completely ignored the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and the documents placed on record at the time of assessment proceedings which clearly shows that the assessee has disclosed all the transaction in the books of accounts of the LLP for which the Return of Income is already filed for the year under consideration. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) has held as under :- “33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011- 2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.” 12. Applying the above ratio referred in the aforesaid decision, the impugned Assessment Order is not tenable being passed against the non-existent firm and therefore, the same is void ab-inito. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the petition succeeds and is, accordingly, allowed. The impugned Assessment Order dated 28.03.2022 is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent with no order as to costs.