2017 (9) TMI 1462 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of Assessment done in the name of a non-existing company - assessment passed in the name of the amalgamated company and the only reference if any to the amalgamating company is the PAN No- Held that - Assessment order has been passed by the A.O, Mumbai, having jurisdiction over the amalgamated company and the mention of the PAN no. of the merged company is only to differentiate between the amalgamated and amalgamating companies for the period when both of them were in existence. Therefore, we are not in agreement with the order of the CIT(A) that the assessment has been done in the name of a non-existing company. Therefore, we set it aside. The Revenue s appeal is accordingly allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Condonation of delay in filing Revenue's appeal
2. Validity of assessment order in the name of a non-existing company
3. Adjudication of grounds of appeal by the assessee

Analysis:
1. The Revenue's appeal was delayed by 12 days, attributed to difficulties in obtaining case records. The delay was condoned, and the appeal was heard.

2. The assessment pertained to an amalgamated company, which had merged with another entity. The Revenue argued that the assessment was valid despite being in the name of the non-existing amalgamating company. They cited Section 292(BB) of the IT Act to support their position. However, the assessee contended that the assessment on a non-existing company was invalid. The CIT(A) held the assessment invalid, but the Tribunal disagreed. They noted that the assessment order was passed by the A.O. having jurisdiction over the amalgamated company and the PAN number was used to differentiate between the two entities. The Tribunal allowed the Revenue's appeal, setting aside the CIT(A)'s decision.

3. As the assessment was revived, the Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to adjudicate the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions made by the A.O. The Cross Objection of the assessee was also allowed. Ultimately, both the Revenue's appeal and the assessee's Cross Objection were allowed by the Tribunal.

This judgment highlights the importance of proper assessment procedures in cases involving mergers and acquisitions, emphasizing the need for accurate identification of entities for assessment purposes.