9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (5) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BER For The Assessee : Shri Ashwini Taneja, Adv Shri Saurabh Goyal, CA For The Revenue : Shri Atiq Ahmed, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 38, New Delhi dated 01.11.2017 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14. 2 2. The assessee has raised seven substantive grounds of appeal. Vide Ground No. 1 alongwith its sub-grounds, the assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer stating that the AO has wrongly assumed jurisdiction and further erred in framing assessment on an entity in whose name jurisdiction was assumed which did not exist. Vide the other grounds, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f appeal 2, 3 and 4 which re adjudicated together. The submissions of appellant is that Ld. Assessing Officer has passed the impugned assessment order on the appellant by assuming jurisdiction on an entity which did not exist in the course of completing such assessment. In fact perusal of the assessment order reveals that the appellant nowhere in the course of assessment proceedings intimated the assessing officer that there had been any amalgamation in this company and that appellant company did not exist either when the return was filed electronically on 10.09.2013, or when notice u/s 143(2) dated 05.09.2014 was issued or even after when notice u/s 143(1) was issued and Shri K.C. Garg, CA and Authorized Representative of the assessee comp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b initio. 7. Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the order of the authorities below. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below and with the assistance of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we have considered the relevant documentary evidences brought on record in the form of paper book in the light of Rule 18(6) of the ITAT Rules, 1962. It is true that vide order dated 22.08.2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has sanctioned the Scheme of Amalgamation in respect of 8 transferors companies in which the assessee company is also a party as transferor company No. 4. This order of the Hon'ble High Court is exhibited at pages 8 to 17 of the assessee s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect as there cannot be any assessment against a dead person. 13. The Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Images Credit and Portfolio [P] Ltd in ITA Nos. 5301 to 5306 and ITA No. 5418/DEL/2013 dated 19.12.2014 on identical set of facts has held as under: 6.2. The ratio of the above decision would be squarely applicable to the case of the assessee because the facts are identical. In the above mentioned case notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was sent to the company which was not in existence on the date of the issue of notice. Similarly in the case of the assessee notice under Section 153C was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the name of transferor company chose to complete the assessment in the name of the assessee by simply mentioning in the Cause Title of the assessment order the fact of amalgamation. Considering the totality of the above facts and respectfully following the decision of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/s Spice Entertainment Ltd. we hold that the issue of notice under Section 153C in the name of M/s Image Credit and Portfolio Pvt.Ltd. on 10th September,2010 is void. Accordingly the same is quashed. Once the notice issued under Section 153C has been quashed the assessment completed in pursuance to such notice also cannot survive and the same is also quashed. 14. On a thoughtful consideration of the facts of the case in h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
