9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1241X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... / confirming the assessments in the name of non-existent entities, namely, Haryana Gramin Bank and Gurgaon Gramin Bank which are not sustainable in the eyes of law being nullity, hence ordered to be quashed. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ith Rule 8D of IT Act against the exempted income of dividend& tax free income of ₹ 1,05,05,444/-. (b) That without prejudice to ground no.2(1), above, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) is not justified in making/confirming the disallowance u/s 14A read with Rule 8D of IT Act in excess of the exempted income of dividend & tax free income which is only of ₹ 1,05,05,444/-. 3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the Ld. AO as well as Ld. CIT (A) erred in not allowing the deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) to the extent of ₹ 22,00,000/- by not fully accepting the provision for bad & doubtful debts made by the bank for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of IT Act, 1961." 3. Appellant, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... od of securities." 4. Briefly stated the facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy at hand are : The assessee is into the business of banking established under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. Assessee's banks, namely, Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Haryana Gramin Bank who have filed appeals bearing ITA Nos.4069 & 4670/Del/2018 and ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018, have been merged with Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank w.e.f. 29.11.2013 as per Government of India Notification by way of amalgamation of erstwhile Gurgaon Gramin Bank HO at Gurgaon (sponsored by Syndicate Bank) and erstwhile Haryana Gramin Bank HO at Rohtak (sponsored by PNB) with 50% shares of Government of India, 35% shares of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank & 15% shares of the Haryana ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties to the appeal, gone through the documents relied upon and orders passed by the Revenue authorities below in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Ld. AR for the assessee by raising ground no.1 has sought to quash the assessment proceedings on the ground that the assessments in the aforesaid cases have been framed by the AO on a non-existent entity and brought on record a Gazette Notification No.2686 dated 29.11.2013 of Government of India vide which erstwhile Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Haryana Gramin Bank have been amalgamated with M/s. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank w.e.f. 29.11.2013. Ld. AR for the assessee also brought on record copy of letter dated 05.12.2016, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the previous year preceding that year shall be made on the successor in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor, and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly. 11. When we examine aforesaid undisputed facts and provisions contained u/s 170(2) of the Act in the light of the fact that assessments in this case have been framed on 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 whereas the assessee ceased to be in existence w.e.f. 29.11.2013 on account of amalgamation with M/s. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank vide Gazette Notification (supra) and as such, assessment framed in this case is not sustainable having been framed in the name of non-existent entity, rather the AO was required to frame the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011- 2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the intere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
