9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (4) TMI 694X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt case, the fact that the amalgamated company, i.e. ACL, subsequently appeared in the proceedings cannot take away from the fact that the notice u/s. 17 of the Act was bad in law and such defect cannot be cured merely on account of the fact that the amalgamated company appeared subsequently. It is a well established position of law that the defect in the notice of reopening cannot be cured because it goes to the root of the jurisdiction to reopen the proceedings. - Decided in favour of assessee - WTA NO. 11/MUM/2014 - - - Dated:- 24-2-2016 - SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER For The Appellant : Shri Basant Kasat For The Respondent : Shri Neil Philip (DR) ORDER PER G.S. PANNU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the notice was served on a company which was not in existence at the relevant point of time. 4. In order to appreciate the aforesaid plea, the following fact-position is relevant. M/s. Ambuja Cement Rajasthan Ltd. (in short ACRL‟) was engaged in the business of manufacture of cement and other related products. The said concern stood dissolved w.e.f. 1.6.2004 pursuant to its merger with one M/s. Ambuja Cements Ltd. (in short ACL‟) in terms of a scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) vide orders dated 7.1.2004 and 27.5.2004. On 30.3.2011 a notice u/s. 17 of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on the ground that, on the relevant valuation date for the captione ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o pointed out that replies to all the queries and notices of the Assessing Officer were furnished by ACL mentioning the subject as ACRL. For all the said reasons, CIT(A) upheld the stand of the Assessing Officer that provisions of Sec. 42C of the Act protects the initiation of assessment proceedings in the present case. Accordingly, the plea of the assessee that the assessment was invalid has been rejected. 6. Before us, the learned representative for the assessee pointed out that on facts there is no dispute that on the date of initiation of the impugned assessment proceedings, i.e. 30.3.2011, ACRL (the subject assessee) was not in existence as it stood amalgamated with ACL w.e.f. 1.6.2004. Therefore, according to the learned representa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s. 17 of the Act on 30.3.2011 which is sought to be assailed by the appellant-company on the ground that the same was illegal, having been issued in the name of a non-existent amalgamating company. Notably, ACRL, which was visited with the notice u/s. 17 of the Act had since amalgamated with ACL on 1.6.2004 in terms of an amalgamation scheme sanctioned by the BIFR. It is a trite law that initiation of the proceedings for reopening of the assessment hinges upon the service of a valid notice in terms of Sec. 17 of the Act. Ostensibly, the notice issued to a person who is not in existence at the time of issuance of such notice renders such initiation invalid. In the present case, the fact that the amal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
