9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1554X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany, as after the order passed by this Court sanctioning the scheme of merger and the original assessee - transferor Company Pvt. Ltd. was ordered to be merged into one M to M Traders Private Limited and thereafter even the said M to M Traders Private Limited is further ordered to be merged into the petitioner - assessee Company, the impugned notice against the non-existent Company is not not permissible. - Decided against revenue - SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20724 of 2016 - - - Dated:- 20-12-2016 - MR. M.R. SHAH AND MR. B.N. KARIA, JJ. FOR THE PETITIONER : MR B S SOPARKAR, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT : MRS MAUNA M BHATT, ADVOCATE ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.00. RULE . Mrs.Maun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany, which came to be merged into one M to M Traders Private Limited w.e.f. 1/4/2012 by the order of the Company Court dated 8/5/2013. It is also not in dispute that subsequently the said M to M Traders Private Limited further merged into the petitioner w.e.f. 3/10/2013 pursuant to the order passed by the Company Court dated 18/3/2014. It is not in dispute that the impugned notice under section 148 of the act to reopen the assessment for the A.Y. 2009-2010 has been issued in the name of the original assessee M/s. Accurate Finstock Private Limited. 5.02. That thereafter the respondent supplied copy of the reasons recorded vide letter dated 13/7/2016. 5.03. The original assessee vide letter dated 10/8/2016 raised various objections ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the original assessee, the petitioner successor has preferred the present Special Civil Application. 6.00. Mr.Soparkar, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax reported in [2014] 364 ITR 600 (Guj.) and it is submitted that once the original assessee is ordered to be merged into another company, consequently not in existence, notice for assessment / reassessment against the transferor Company shall not be sustainable. It is submitted that in the present case when the impugned notice is issued in the name of the original assessee, the same has been issued against the non-existent Compan ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... submitted that therefore on facts the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 8.00. Heard the learned advocates appearing on behalf of the respective parties at length. 8.01. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that the impugned notice under section 148 of the act has been issued against the original assessee to reopen the assessment for the A.Y. 2009-2010. It is also not in dispute that the original assessee Company has been merged into one M to M Traders Private Limited pursuant to the order passed by the Company Court dated 1/4/2012. It is also not in dispute that thereafter even the said M to M Traders Private Limited is also further merged into the petitioner Company ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be made on the transferee Company taking into account the income of both the transferor and transferee Company and also the more advisable course from the point of view of the revenue would be to make one assessment on the transferee Company and to make separate protective assessments on both the transferor and transferee Companies separately. Ultimately, the Division Bench has held that the transferor Company would no longer be amenable to the assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2010-11, and therefore, notice for producing documents for such assessment would therefore be invalid. In the said case, the Division Bench observed that in view of the above binding decision of the Division Bench of this Court also, the impugned not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
