9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (2) TMI 1061X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and relevant to the subjective opinion formed by the AO in regard to escapement of income. In the present case, the AO s reasons to believe are fortified with the tangible material in the form of specific information received by the Investigation Wing. Thus, the AO is downright justified in issuing the notice for reassessment. It is revealed from the said material available on record that a reasonable belief was formed by the Assessing Officer that income of the petitioner has escaped assessment and therefore, once the reasonable belief is articulated and expressed by the AO on the basis of cogent tangible material, he was not expected to arrive at a final conclusion thereon at the stage of issuance of notice. Even if scrutiny assessment has been undertaken in the first place, if significant new material is found in the form of information, the assessing officer can form a belief that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment, and reopen assessment. It is also trite law that for cases relating to inter alia, share application money, three vital aspects have to be considered by the Assessing Officer, namely (i) the identity of the investors; (ii) the credit worthiness ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... during the relevant time, i.e., AY 2012-2013, they existed as separate entities. There is no dispute that in the present case, the amalgamating company does not exist on the date of issuance of notice and accordingly, the assessment had to be made in the name of amalgamated company i.e. the petitioner. We cannot construe Section 170 (2) of the Act in the manner, the petitioner has urged. The aforesaid provision nowhere requires that two separate notices and separate assessment order are to be passed. On the contrary, the petitioner as a successor would also be liable for the income of the previous year in which the succession took place upto the date of the succession. We are therefore unable to understand as to what purpose would be served by two separate assessment orders. Pertinently, as of now, we are only concerned with the requirement of issue of two separate notices under Section 147/148 and we cannot find any such requirements emanating from Section 170 (2) of the Act. In the present case also, on the date of issue of reassessment notice, i.e. 31.03.2019, EDIPL had ceased to exist as a separate entity (w.e.f. 01.04.2012). Therefore, for reopening of assessment procee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3. Petitioner is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction-development projects. Pursuant to a scheme of amalgamation approved by this Court vide order dated 20.12.2012, M/s. Experion Developers International Pvt. Ltd [hereinafter referred to as EDIPL , the erstwhile assessee], amalgamated with M/s. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. [hereinafter referred to as EDPL , the successor-in-interest and Petitioner herein] with effect from 01.04.2012. During the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration i.e. AY 2012-13, (FY 2011-12) the Petitioner and the erstwhile-assessee, EDIPL, were separate/independently assessable assessees. For the assessment year under consideration, i.e., AY 2012-13, as Petitioner (EDPL) was the only surviving entity, it alone filed return of income declaring loss of ₹ 7,82,95,075/-. The return of income was selected for scrutiny and after making certain disallowances, the total income was assessed at ₹ 90,15,239/- and assessment order dated 19.03.2015 was passed under Section 143(3) of the Act. The said order is presently subject matter of a pending appeal. 4. Subsequently, Respondent No.1 issued ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceived from DIT (Intell. Cr. Inv.), New Delhi on 30.03.2015 regarding funds received by the assessee from a foreign entity. The DIT (Intell. Cr. Inv.), New Delhi has carried out the investigation and detailed inquiry regarding the funds received by the Experion Group Company in India from it s parent company which did not have sufficient funds of its own to make such investments. The recorded reasons for reopening the assessment in W.P.(C) 11303/2019 are as under; 1. Brief Details Inv), New, Delhi on 30.03.2015 regarding funds received by the assessee from foreign entities The DIT has carried out investigation and detailed enquiry regarding funds received by, Experion Group companies in India, From their parent company, which did not have sufficient funds of its own to make such investments. These inquiries were conducted after commercial intelligence was received by Jt. secy. (Ft TR)- II, CBDT from The First Secretary (Economic) in High commission of India, at Singapore, vide letter dated 31/10/2011, that an entity M/s Gold Hotels Resort Pte. Ltd, a Singapore based company, had made large investments in Indian entity namely, M/s. Experion Developers Pvt. L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... money remains outstanding over a long time itself is not how a genuine investment is normally made, because shares are normally issued after the application is made, or the amount is refunded back. On the basis of enquiries conducted by DIT (Intell. Cr. Inv.), New Delhi, the observations are as follows:- 1. The movement in share capital in Gold Singapore shows that in the initial years, the funding came from Darley Investment Service Inc, (Darley) and Merix International Ventures Limited. Darley and Merix. Subsequently transferred their share in Gold Singapore through a complex series of financial arrangments involving many entities finally to M/s. Gemwood Invest Holdings Ltd. 2. When the Directorate issued summons to Sh. Arvind Tikoo the Director and the main person behind the group, the reply was evasive in most of his replies, on the plea that he is an NRI, the foreign assets were not disclosed. His PAN No. is AONPT3527L and he had not filed any return of income in India. On the analysis of the report received, it can be noted that the Singapore Company (Gold Singapore) apparently does not appear to be carrying out any regular business activities in Sing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... stated that the reassessment proceedings are proposed to be initiated in the case of Experion Developers Private Limited, for funds received by it as an independent entity as well as the successor in interest of amalgamated company Experion Developers International Private Limited, which in AY 2012-13 was a separate entity. In this case, since more than four years have elapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice under section 148 of the act is being obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi03, New Delhi as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. (Emphasis supplied) 8. The recorded reasons in respect of W.P.(C) 11303/2019 are identical, except for the differences noted hereinbelow: 1. During the year under consideration, the company M/s Gold Hotels Resort Pte. Ltd, hereinafter referred as Gold Singapore has made an alleged investment of ₹ 5.75 crores in the assesse company M/s Experion Hospitality Pvt Ltd. 2. As per the information, Gold Singapore is owned by only one share holder M/s Gemwood lnvest Holdings Ltd. having address in British Virgin Island. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have elapsed from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Hence, necessary sanction to issue notice under section 148 of the act is being obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-03, New Delhi as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act. Common submissions of the Petitioners in W.P.(C) 11302/2019 11303/2019 9. Petitioners contend that reassessment proceedings have been initiated on the basis of reasons to believe that are invalid, without reference to any fresh tangible material and are shorn of independent application of mind. Under the scheme of the Act, the assessing officer can initiate proceedings under section 147 of the Act only if he has reason to believe that any income of the assessee has escaped assessment. Such belief has to be arrived at by the assessing officer on the basis of tangible/ reliable information in the possession of the assessing officer. In terms of section 148 of the Act, the assessing officer is required to record the reasons on the basis of which proceedings under section 147 of the Act are initiated. The reasons recorded must, therefore, show application of mind by the assessing officer. It has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t financial year. Further, relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT vs Kelvinator of India Ltd: 320 ITR 561 (SC), it is argued by the petitioner that there can be no review of an assessment in the guise of reopening and that a bare review without any tangible material would amount to abuse of power. There was no fresh/ tangible material with the AO and for the said reason, too, the assumption of jurisdiction by Respondent No.1 to reopen proceedings for assessment year 2012-13 is invalid and unsustainable. 12. Furthermore, it was submitted that in the present case, sanction has been obtained from Additional Commissioner of Income Tax , i.e. respondent no. 2, which is not as per the mandate of section 151 of the Act. In this regard, it was submitted that obtaining sanction from an officer who does not have jurisdiction over the matter is not justified and thus vitiates the legality of the proceedings. Further, the sanction was granted mechanically, without any application of mind, and hence, cannot be regarded as valid sanction as required to be obtained under section 151 and, therefore, proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... recorded as M/s. Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Earlier known as Gold Developers Pvt. Ltd.), including its role as successor in interest of Experion Developers (International) Pvt. Ltd. which has amalgamated into M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. It was argued that pursuant to amalgamation, if the amalgamating company and amalgamated company both are intended to be assessed by the Revenue then, in such case, as per the provisions of section 170(2) of the Act, separate notices are required to be issued viz. one in the name of amalgamated company in its independent capacity and another in the name of amalgamated company as successor in interest of the amalgamating company, so that the same culminate into separate assessment orders, qua the income of amalgamated company and amalgamating company. In this regard, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in PCIT v Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 397 ITR 681 (Del) and CIT v K Adinarayana Murty 65 ITR 607 (SC). Contentions of the Respondent 14. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondent submitted that if new facts, material or information comes to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer, which was not on record an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act. (d) Whether proper sanction as required under Section 151 of the Act was obtained or not. 16. In addition to the aforesaid questions, in W.P. (C) 11302/2019, an additional question (e) that arises for our consideration is as to whether the common reassessment notice issued in the name of EDPL for reopening of assessment proceedings in respect of both EDPL and EDIPL is bad in law, in as much as whether separate notices were required to be issued in the name of (i) EDPL in its individual capacity and, (ii) EDPL, as successor-ininterest of EDIPL . 17. Having summed up the grounds of challenge, we now proceed to deal with each of them comprehensively. (a). WHETHER THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS TO BELIEVE ; WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY FRESH TANGIBLE MATERIAL, AND; WITHOUT ANY INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND 18. We have perused the reasons recorded by the Revenue to re-open the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13; the objections to reopening filed by the assessee/petitioner to the notice for reopening assessment, as well as the order dated 25.09.2019 disposing of the said objections preferred by the petit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... icial principles, the crux lies in the recorded reasons which shed light on the mind of the AO and having perused the same in the instant case, we are not persuaded with Mr. Vohra s submission that the observations of the AO are based purely on conjunctures and surmises, without reference to any tangible material. At this stage, we may refer to our decisions in Vedanta Ltd v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in W.P. (C) 13036/2019 decided on 20.12.2019 and also in RDS Project Ltd. in W.P. (C) 11274/2019 decided on 23.10.2019 wherein we have extensively examined the case law on this issue. 21. In the above judgments, we have noted the views of the Supreme Court in Assistant CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Broker Pvt. Ltd. (2008) 14 SSC 208, wherein it has been held that the expression reason in Section 147 of the Act means a cause or justification . The Assessing Officer can be said to have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, if he has a cause or justification to know, or suppose, that income has escaped assessment. 22. It is also apposite to note the observations of the Supreme Court in Sri Krishna Pvt. Ltd v. Income Tax Officer [1996] 221 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eded to be examined for the following reasons: (i) The equity of the.87 million USD which is very small in comparison to the investment investing company M/s Gold Hotels Resort Pte. Ltd., hereinafter referred as Gold Singapore is 5 million USD as against the above investment of 163. (ii) Gold Singapore is owned by on share holder M/s Gemwood Invest Holdings Limited having address in British Virgin Island. ( iii ) The Directors of Gold Singapore are Name Nationality Address Arvind Tiku Indian National 329, River Valley Road #25-02, Yong Ann Park, Singapore 238361 Yap Chee Keong Michael Singapore Citizen 77 Marine Drive #9-48 Singapore 440077 (iv) Mr. Arvind Tiku is the key person who managed the investments. (v) It is possible that the amounts may have been shown all credits/ loans raised from other countries mostly tax havens to form a circuitous route. (vi) Gold had not filed the annual accounts and its business premises consisted of just one room which was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ity to enquire further into the sources of funding of Gold Singapore since both Darley and M/s Gemwood Invest Holdings were located outside Singapore. (iii) The IRA Singapore has mentioned in its report that a search of the internet showed that Darely is/ was controlled by Kazakhstan billionaire Timur Kulibayev. However, they were unable to comment further upon him since he was not a Singapore entity. (iv) The IRA Singapore has also given details of remittances made to M/s Gold Resorts Hotels Pvt. Ltd. For acquisition of its shares as on 31.03.2011 in a statement which is enclosed as per Annexure-3 of this report. (v) The IRA Singapore has forwarded Financial statements of Gold Singapore from 29.03.2006 (date of Incorporation) to 31.03.2007 and for the year ended on 31.03.2008, 31.03,2009 31.03.2010, As per the statement, Gold Singapore has following subsidiaries in India: Sl. No. Name of the company Director Director Director Director Director 1 Gold Resorts and Hotels Pvt. Ltd. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pers Pvt. Ltd. Arvind Tiku Gaurav Maheshwari 3. Goldstar Infracon Pvt. Ltd. Not known Not known 4. Gold Town planners Promoters Pvt. Ltd. Suneet Puri Gaurav Maheshwari 5. Gold Estate Developers Pvt. Ltd. Suneet Puri Gaurav Maheshwari 6. Gold Builders Pvt. Ltd. Suneet Puri Gaurav Maheshwari 5. Since the information received from the Inland Revenue Authority of the Govt, of Singapore showed that Gold Singapore had received its funds from sources other than Singapore and Sri Arvind Tiku was reported as the key person behind all the transactions leading investment in Indian companies, a notice u/s 131 of Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to Sri Tiku on 27.07.2012 seeking relevant details regarding source of investment of Gold Singapore in the Indian companies. xxxxxxxx 12. In view of the details gathered, the Singapore compa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NR (Cr.) 1 M/s Experion Developers Pvt. Ltd. (Gold Developers Private Limited) F-9, First Floor, Manish Plaza-1, Plot No. 7, MLU, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi- 110075 AACCG8138L 2008-09 142.422 2012-13 182.944 2 M/s Experion Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Gold Resorts Hotels Pvt. Ltd.) AACCG5418P 2006-07 18.220 2007-08 52.383 2008-09 39.271 2009-10 40.339 2010-11 10.067 2011-12 2.327 2012-13 5.75 3 M/s Experion Developers International Pvt. Ltd. (Gold Developers International Limited) AACCG8200B 2008-09 409.581 2009-10 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the onus of proving the source of money found to have been received by the assessee, is on the assessee. Once the assessee has submitted the documents relating to identity of the payer, genuineness of the transaction, and creditworthiness of the payee, then the AO must conduct an inquiry and call for more details before invoking section 68. If the assessee is not able to provide a satisfactory explanation of the nature and source of investment made; the genuineness of the transaction, and; the creditworthiness of the payer, it is open to the revenue to hold that such investment is the income of the assessee, and that there would be no further burden on the revenue to show that the income is from any particular source. The Supreme Court also observed that with respect to the genuineness of the transaction, it is for the assessee to prove the same by cogent and credible evidence, since the investment was claimed to have been made in the share capital of the assessee company, it was for the assessee to establish that it was a genuine investment, since the facts are exclusively within the assessee s knowledge. Merely providing the identity of the investors does not discharge the onus ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... agree with this submission of the Petitioner. There is sufficient material disclosed in the investigation report to say that the creditworthiness of the investor company is doubtful. Moreover, the responses of Mr. Arvind Tiku also appear to be evasive. We cannot lose sight of the fact that apparently, the parent company itself, does not have sufficient funds to invest such huge amounts in Indian subsidiaries, and the funds are routed through a web of entities spread across various jurisdictions, mostly in tax havens. The investments so made, are required to be investigated and the credit worthiness of the investing company is in jeopardy, in view of the information received from the investigation wing. This exercise can be undertaken during the re-reassessment proceedings to finally determine if the amounts represent undisclosed income of the petitioner company which is required to be taxed in their hands. As noticed above, at the stage of re-opening, only a reason to believe should exist with regard to escapement of income. Definite conclusion would be drawn after raising queries upon the assessee in the light of Section 68 of the Act. 30. There cannot be any doubt from the rea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the assessee by a higher assessment of income than the one actually made. They should be proximate and not have remote bearing on the assessment. The omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent. The question of concealment is not relevant and is not a precondition which confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. 17. Correct material facts can be ascertained from the assessment records also and it is not necessary that the same may come from a third person or source, i.e., from source other than the assessment records. However, in such cases, the onus will be on the Revenue to show that the assessee had stated incorrect and wrong material facts resulting in the Assessing Officer proceeding on the basis of facts, which are incorrect and wrong. The reasons recorded and the documents on record are of paramount importance and will have to be examined to determine whether the stand of the Revenue is correct. Decision of this Court in Dalmia (P.) Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 202 Taxman 372/ 14 taxmann.com 106 and decision of Bombay High Court in Indian Hume Pipe Co. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2012] 204 Taxman 347 /[2011] 16 taxmann.com 190 are two such cases. In the first case, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ur of the Revenue and against the assessee. 19. As recorded above, the reasons recorded or the documents available must show nexus that in fact they are germane and relevant to the subjective opinion formed by the Assessing Officer regarding escapement of income. At the same time, it is not the requirement that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained escapement of income by recording conclusive findings. The final ascertainment takes place when the final or reassessment order is passed. It is enough if the Assessing Officer can show tentatively or prima facie on the basis of the reasons recorded and with reference to the documents available on record that income has escaped assessment. (Emphasis supplied) 33. As already discussed above, in the present case, new facts, material or information have come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer by way of the report of DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) with regards to the doubtful source of the investments made into the petitioner companies. At the time of original assessment, the Assessing Officer was not aware of or in possession of information which could have indicated that the introductio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE ACT 34. The first proviso to section 147 provides that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143, or this section, has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year. The Explanation 1 to the proviso to section 147 is also relevant and reads as follows: Explanation 1.- Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso. 35. From a bare reading of the proviso, it is clear that reassessment proceedings under section 147 may be initiated after th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... true. Material facts are those facts which if taken into accounts they would have an adverse affect on assessee by the higher assessment of income than the one actually made. They should be proximate and not have any remote bearing on the assessment. Omission to disclose may be deliberate or inadvertent. This is not relevant, provided there is omission or failure on the part of assessee. The latter confers jurisdiction to reopen assessment. 37. Explanation 1 to the proviso to section 147 elaborates on the meaning of the phrase disclosure as mentioned in the proviso. Reference may be made to the decision of this Court in Rose Serviced Apartments (P.) Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax [2011] 9 taxmann.com 199 (Delhi), wherein it was observed that from a reading of the said Explanation, it is clear that that mere production of books of account or other material from which the Assessing Officer could, with due diligence, have discovered escapement of income, does not bar reassessment proceedings. Yet at the same time if the proviso applies and the assessee has fully and truly disclosed all the material facts necessary for assessment for that assessment year, reasse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proviso, does not apply and the initiation of proceedings is not barred by limitation. (d) WHETHER PROPER SANCTION AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT WAS OBTAINED OR NOT 40. It is a requirement for issuance of notice for reopening of assessment proceedings under section 151 of the Act that the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for issuance of such notice. 41. In the recorded reasons also, it has been noted that necessary sanction to issue notice under section 148 of the Act is being obtained separately from Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-03, New Delhi as per the provisions of section 151 of the Act . In its reply on this issue, in the order dated 25.9.2019 dismissing objections of the petitioners to the notice under section 148, it has been pointed out that the approval of the competent authority was obtained vide note sheet entries dated 31.3.2019 and the same was enclosed along with the order. However, the same has not been annexed to the present petitions. It has been argued that obtaining approval of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld to be valid. 43. Therefore, it is clear that necessary sanction for issuance of notice under section 148, as required under section 151 had been obtained. (e) WHETHER NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF EXPERION DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. (EDPL) IS BAD IN LAW AS SEPARATE NOTICES WERE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED TO EDPL IN ITS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND AS THE SUCCESSOR-ININTEREST OF EDIPL 44. Petitioner has placed reliance on Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-6, New Delhi v Maruti Suzuki [2017] 85 taxmann.com 330 (Delhi) where two entities namely, Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd. (SPIL) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (MSIL) had amalgamated into MSIL and assessment order under section 143 (3) had been passed in the name of SPIL, which entity had ceased to exist on the date of the assessment order. In these circumstances, the Court held the said assessment order to be without jurisdiction. The relevant portion of the said judgment is extracted as under: 13. The question whether, for the purposes of Section 170 (2) of the Act, the defect of passing the assessment order in the name of an non-existent entity is a mere irregularity was answered by this Court in Dimension Apparels (P.) Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice issued on February 12, 1958 was a valid assessment. 45. On the basis of the aforenoted judgment, challenge whereto by the Revenue before the Supreme Court resulted in dismissal, and further relying upon Section 170 (2) of the Act, Mr. Vohra has contended that separate notices are required to be issued viz. one in the name of amalgamated company in its independent capacity and another in the name of amalgamated company as successor-in-interest of an amalgamating company. We are not impressed with Mr. Vohra s contentions. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), this Court while relying upon its earlier decision in Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd. (supra), has dealt with Section 170 (1) and 170 (2), on an entirely different issue, which is clearly discernible from the portion of the judgment extracted herein above. In Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd (supra), the Court has held that the text of Section 170 (2) makes it clear that assessment must be made on the successor (i.e. the amalgamated company) in the event, the predecessor cannot be found. The factual situation in the present case is different from that in the case of Maruti Suzuki (supra). Maruti Suzuki (supra) dealt with the valid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said case, a company VBPPL amalgamated with the petitioner company therein (BDR Builders Developers) on 01.04.2012 and notice for reopening of assessment under section 148 was issued in the name of VBPPL on 03.04.2012. It was held that on the date of said reassessment order, VBPPL had ceased to exist as an entity and therefore, notice issued in the name of VBPPL was void. Thus, once, the amalgamating company has merged with the amalgamated entity, it ceases to exist in its individual capacity. In the present case also, on the date of issue of reassessment notice, i.e. 31.03.2019, EDIPL had ceased to exist as a separate entity (w.e.f. 01.04.2012). Therefore, for reopening of assessment proceedings in respect of EDIPL, now merged with EDPL, a notice can only be issued in the name of the merged entity. There is no requirement to issue two separate notices in the name of amalgamated company (i) as successor-in-interest of the amalgamating company and (ii) in its individual capacity, as the amalgamated company (EDPL) has taken over the liabilities of the amalgamating company (EDIPL) and the notice mentions the liabilities of EDIPL as it accrued pre-amalgamation in its individual c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
