2019 (9) TMI 1206 - HC - Income Tax

Order u/s 143 (3) r.w.s.144 C in the name of the predecessor of the amalgamated company - HELD THAT - The Supreme Court in a recent decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT 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 - no merit in the present appeal and no question arises for consideration

Summary

Issues:
1. Amendment of cause title in the present appeal.
2. Competency of the order passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of the predecessor of the respondent assessee.
3. Impact of the notice of amalgamation on the assessment process.
4. Legal principle regarding the ceasing of the amalgamating entity upon approved scheme of amalgamation.

Analysis:
1. The respondent sought correction of the cause title in the present appeal, highlighting that the name mentioned was incorrect. The High Court allowed the application for amendment as it was unopposed, correcting the respondent's name to "Genpact India Pvt. Ltd." The amended memo of parties was duly filed and accepted.

2. The revenue filed the present appeal to challenge the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal for the assessment year 2010-11. The issue arose from the Assessing Officer passing a draft order in the name of the predecessor of the respondent assessee despite being aware of the amalgamation. The High Court found this action to be incompetent based on legal principles.

3. It was established that the Assessing Officer had notice of the amalgamation, yet proceeded with the order in the name of the predecessor company. Citing a recent Supreme Court decision, it was emphasized that the jurisdictional notice issued in the name of the amalgamating entity was fundamentally flawed as the entity ceases to exist post-amalgamation. The court referred to previous judgments to support this legal stance.

4. The High Court, considering the legal position and precedents, concluded that there was no merit in the appeal. It was determined that the participation of the appellant in the proceedings could not create an estoppel against the law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, aligning with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation.