9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (2) TMI 873 - AT - Income TaxTPA orders against non existent company - Held that - TPO passed the order u/s 92CA(3) on 29.01.2013. Thereafter, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 12.03.2013 and the assessee raised the objections before the ld. DRP who issued the direction to the TPO/AO vide order dated 26.12.2013 and the TPO on the directions of the ld. DRP passed the order giving effect of the direction of the DRP-1 u/s 24(5) of the Act on 21.01.2014. All the aforesaid orders were passed in the name of erstwhile entity i.e. M/s Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. without any mentioning of the transferee name i.e. M/s Genpact India. Therefore, it is crystal clear from the aforesaid narrated facts that the entity M/s Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. which amalgamated with M/s Genpact India, was not in existence when the TPO/AO/DRP passed their respective orders. Thus the assessment was framed by the AO on the non-existent amalgamated company, not on the amalgamating company, therefore, the assessment framed was void ab initio - Decided in favour of assessee
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity due to amalgamation. 2. Admission of additional ground under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Assessment Order Passed on a Non-Existent Entity Due to Amalgamation: The primary issue in this case was whether the assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO), Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), and Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) were valid, given that they were issued in the name of a non-existent entity, Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd., which had amalgamated with Genpact India. The assessee argued that the orders passed by the lower authorities were void ab initio as they were issued to a non-existent entity. The amalgamation was effective from April 1, 2010, as per the Delhi High Court's order dated November 19, 2010, and this fact was communicated to the AO on January 24, 2011. Despite this, the AO, DRP, and TPO continued to issue orders in the name of the erstwhile entity. The Tribunal noted that the additional ground raised by the assessee was purely legal and did not require fresh investigation. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT, the Tribunal admitted the additional ground. The Tribunal further examined the facts and found that the AO had been informed about the amalgamation but still issued orders in the name of the non-existent entity. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Delhi High Court's decisions in Spice Entertainment Limited vs Commissioner of Service Tax and CIT(C)-II Vs. Micra India Pvt. Ltd., which held that assessments made on non-existent entities are void ab initio and constitute a jurisdictional defect. The Tribunal concluded that the assessment orders passed by the AO, DRP, and TPO were invalid as they were issued to a non-existent entity. The orders were quashed on this ground. 2. Admission of Additional Ground under Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963: The assessee requested the admission of an additional ground under Rule 11, which was purely legal and did not involve fresh investigation. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs CIT had held that the Tribunal has the discretion to allow new grounds if they involve questions of law arising from facts already on record. The Tribunal found that the additional ground raised by the assessee was a question of law and admitted it for consideration. The Tribunal then proceeded to address the merits of the additional ground, ultimately concluding that the assessment orders were void ab initio due to being issued to a non-existent entity. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee, quashing the assessment orders passed by the AO, DRP, and TPO on the grounds that they were issued to a non-existent entity due to the amalgamation. The Tribunal also admitted the additional ground raised by the assessee under Rule 11, emphasizing the importance of addressing questions of law to correctly assess tax liability.
|
