9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (10) TMI 350X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9 - SUPREME COURT] wherein held that the issuance of jurisdiction notice and assessment thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company i.e. amalgamating Company having ceased to exist as a result of approved scheme of amalgamation is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of nature adverted to in S. 292B and hence being without jurisdiction. As the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO at Hyderabad. The reasons for reopening were also recorded by AO at Hyderabad. The reassessment order was framed by AO at Delhi. The AO at Delhi had followed the reasons recorded by the AO, Hyderabad meaning thereby that he proceeded in framing the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the AO, Hyderabad. In such a situa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ompany which was stated to have been engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of electronic meters. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2001-02 on 04.10.2001 in the name of Duke Arnics Electronics Ltd. declaring total income of ₹ 11,97,000/- before the AO at Hyderabad. The assessment was initially framed u/s 143(3) by the AO at Hyderabad vide order dated 29.09.2003 accepting the return income of the assessee. Thereafter, notice u/s 148 was issued DCIT, Circle-1(2), Hyderabad on 20.02.2007. Thereafter, assessment was framed u/s 147/143(3) by the ACIT, Circle-16(1), Delhi vide order dated 18.12.2007 and total income was determined at ₹ 27,98,680/-. Aggrieved by the reassessment order passed by the AO, assessee ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer without forming reasonable belief of escapement of income and consequently, the assessment order was illegal and bad in law. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the action of the assessing officer in disallowing weighted deduction of ₹ 16,01,682/-under section 35(2AB) of the Act on research and development expenditure (R D). 3. That the CIT(A) exceeded his jurisdiction in enhancing the income of the appellant by adjudicating and setting aside the issue of allowability of expenditure on R D amounting to ₹ 32,03,364 (100% portion) to the file of the assessing officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it filed necessary application before the Company Law Board (CLB) at Chennai. He submitted that the CLB vide order passed on 26.05.2004 permitted the transfer of Registered Office of assessee from Hyderabad to Delhi. The change of Registered Office was intimated by the Assessee to the AO at Hyderabad and Delhi. He submitted that the assessee intimated to the AO at Hyderabad vide letter dated 04.11.2004 about the shifting of registered office to Delhi and accordingly requested for transfer of all the assessment records to CIT - Delhi and a similar letter was also addressed to the Assessing Officer Delhi. He submitted that pursuant to the order of the Delhi High Court vide order dated 01.02.2005 passed u/s 394 of the Companies Act, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 9). He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid orders. He further submitted that in the present case, the reassessment order is invalid also for the reason that the notice for reopening u/s 148 was issued by the AO at Hyderabad whereas the reassessment order was passed by the AO at Delhi. He submitted that the AO, Delhi had merely followed the reasons recorded by AO, Hyderabad and thus it was a case of borrowed satisfaction. He submitted that on this count also the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 was bad in law. He, therefore, submitted that the order passed by the AO was illegal and be set aside. Learned DR on the other hand supported the order of the lower authorities. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 375 (SC) has held that the issuance of jurisdiction notice and assessment thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company i.e. amalgamating Company having ceased to exist as a result of approved scheme of amalgamation is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of nature adverted to in S. 292B and hence being without jurisdiction. 11. We further find that in the present case, the notice u/s 148 was issued by the AO at Hyderabad. The reasons for reopening were also recorded by AO at Hyderabad. The reassessment order was framed by AO at Delhi. The AO at Delhi had followed the reasons recorded by the AO, Hyderabad meaning thereby that he proceeded in framing the assessment on the basis of borrowed satisfaction of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
