9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 18 levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity "the Act"), and the assessment order dated 30.12.2017, passed under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Act. 2. The assessee challenged the impugned orders that the company M/s. OAS Digital Infrastructures Private Limited, to whom, notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued and based upon which the impugned order has been passed, did not exist at the time of issuance of notice and before passing the impugned order. In other words, the notice has been issued to a company, which is non-existent on the date as it stood amalgamated with the appellant/petitioner - M/s.Oasys Green Tech Private Limited. 3. The appellant relied upon the decisions of the H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of OAS after the amalgamation and obtained refunds issued in the name of OAS, which will all go to show that M/s.OAS continued to exist even after amalgamation. Therefore, the learned Single Bench concluded that by the very conduct, the appellant had led the Department to believe that OAS, as an entity, existent. The Court then proceeded to consider each one of the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the appellant before it and pointed out as to how those decisions are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. We have heard Mr.Suhrith Parthasarathy, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel for the respondent. 7. The facts, as culled out by the learned Single Bench, clearly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as it has been passed against a defunct company, as the company was struck off from the Register of Companies. The assessee in the said case placed reliance on the decision in Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra). The said decision was held to be not applicable to the case of the assessee and the Revenue's appeals were allowed with the following finding:- "7. In support of his contention, Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019 (416) ITR 0613 [SC]). The said decision was relied on to support the contention that framing of an assessment against the non existin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion in the case of Maruthi Suzuki would not render assistance to the case of the assessee because in the said case, the amalgamation was intimated to the Assessing Officer and despite the fact that the amalgamating Company ceased to exist as a result of an approved scheme of amalgamation, making an assessment in the name of non existing Company would render assessment invalid. While the facts of the present case as mentioned above are totally different, it cannot be applied to the case on hand. As mentioned earlier, the assessment is for the year 2000-01 which was reopened and striking off the name of the assessee Company from the Register of Companies occurred only on 21.05.2007, can in no manner impact the assessment for the year 2000-01. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
