2019 (11) TMI 518 - AT - Income Tax

Assessment order in the name of non existent company u/s 153A - scheme of amalgamation adopted - HELD THAT - Framing order in the name of non-existent entity is not a procedural defect curable under section 292B of the Act or under any other provision of the Act but it is a jurisdictional defect and hence any order passed in the name of non-existing person is void ab initio. See assessee own case 2019 (9) TMI 1285 - ITAT DELHI - Appeal of the Department dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Quashing of order due to change of company name.
2. Addition of bogus share capital.
3. Addition of unaccounted commission paid.
4. Validity of assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity.

Issue 1: Quashing of order due to change of company name:
The appeal by Revenue challenged the Order of the Ld. CIT(A) quashing the order of the Assessing Officer due to the change of the company name from M/s Mapsa Infra Pvt. Ltd. to Mapsa Tapes Pvt. Ltd. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention that the assessment was framed in the name of a non-existent entity, which had amalgamated with another company. The Ld. CIT(A) relied on case law to support the decision that framing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, rendering the assessment void ab initio. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, citing precedents and holding that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was correct.

Issue 2: Addition of bogus share capital:
The Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of &8377; 10,25,00,000 made on account of bogus share capital, stating that the facts and circumstances were not properly appreciated. The Tribunal upheld the decision, dismissing the Revenue's appeal. The issue was considered in light of the amalgamation of the companies and the jurisdictional defect in framing orders in the name of non-existent entities.

Issue 3: Addition of unaccounted commission paid:
Similarly, the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition of &8377; 6,15,000 made on account of unaccounted commission paid, citing improper appreciation of facts and circumstances. The Tribunal upheld this decision as well, in line with the dismissal of the Revenue's appeal on other grounds.

Issue 4: Validity of assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity:
The Tribunal referred to a previous order involving the same assessee for A.Ys. 2009-2010 and 2010-2011, where the Departmental Appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal held that the assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity due to company amalgamation was a jurisdictional defect, following the judgment that such orders are void ab initio. The Tribunal declined to interfere with the Ld. CIT(A)'s order, citing Supreme Court rulings and dismissing the Departmental Appeal.

This comprehensive analysis covers the issues raised in the legal judgment, detailing the arguments, decisions, and precedents considered by the Tribunal in each instance.