9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 424X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ‟). 2. In brief, the background of the dispute is that a return of income was filed by the assessee, M/s. Instant Trading & Investment Company Ltd. (in short „ITICL‟) for Assessment Year 2006-07 declaring a loss of Rs. 5,24,13,838/- which was subject to scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act whereby the total income has been assessed at Rs. 2,89,19,530/- after making certain disallowance/additions. The appeal of the assessee was partly allowed by the CIT(A). Against some of the reliefs granted by the CIT(A), Revenue is in appeal before us whereas the assessee is in appeal on the points held by the CIT(A) against the assessee. Accordingly, cross-appeals have been preferred by the assessee and the Revenue before us. 3. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with Form No. 21 on 5.2.2008 and accordingly, for all intents and purposes ITICL stood dissolved w.e.f. 5.2.2008 on the records of the Registrar of Companies also. The aforesaid factual position is not in dispute and is in fact borne out of the relevant material placed in the Paper Book filed before us, viz., order of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, copy of Form No. 21 filed with the Registrar of Companies, copy of the scheme of arrangement approved by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, etc. 5. For the assessment year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2006-07, ITICL filed a return of income on 27.11.2006, which was taken up for scrutiny assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The learned representative for the assessee explained tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ). The learned representative also referred to a subsequent judgement of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Central v. Micra India Pvt. Ltd. (57 Taxmann.com 163) wherein also a similar proposition has been upheld by following its earlier judgement in the case of CIT v. Dimensions Apparel Pvt. Ltd. (370 ITR 288) (Del). 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (in short „the DR‟) appearing for the Revenue has reiterated the reasoning taken by the CIT(A). According to the ld. DR, the return of income for assessment year under consideration, i.e., Assessment Year 2006-07, was filed in the name of the predecessor company, i.e. ITICL, and that the amalgamation took place w.e.f. 1.4.2007, which is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Corp Ltd., i.e., the amalgamating company. In the course of assessment proceedings, the factum of M/s. Spice Corp Ltd. having been dissolved as a result of amalgamation with M/s. MCorp Private Ltd. was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer. However, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 28.3.2005 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Act framed the assessment on M/s. Spice Corp Ltd., i.e., the amalgamating company. In this factual background, the plea raised by the assessee before the Hon'ble High Court was that the assessment was framed against a non-existing entity as M/s. Spice Corp Ltd. had already amalgamated with M/s. MCorp Private Ltd., and therefore, the assessment order dated 28.3.2005 suffered from a jurisdictional defect. In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue and allowed the stand of the assessee. 10. Similarly, even in the case of Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. (supra) the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court has reached to a similar conclusion. In the case before the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, one M/s. SSS Ltd. stood amalgamated with Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1.4.2004; prior to that, it filed a return of income on 28.11.2003 for Assessment Year 2003-04 and an assessment order was passed on 27.3.2006 in the name of the predecessor amalgamating company, i.e., M/s. SSS Ltd. This assessment order was sought to be challenged on the ground that as on 27.3.2006, i.e., the date of passing of assessment order, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 347 ITR 664 also supports the proposition sought to be canvassed by the assessee before us. In sum and substance, it is safe to deduce that an order of assessment made on an entity which is otherwise non-existent on the date of such assessment is invalid. 12. Factually speaking, in the present case the aforesaid proposition applies on all fours, as before the finalization of the impugned assessment on 19.12.2008, it was brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer that ITICL stood amalgamated with IHL w.e.f. 1.4.2007 in terms of a scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 14.12.2007. In our considered opinion, the aforesaid error on the part of the Assessing Officer is liable to be construed as a jur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
