9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (12) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132/133A of the Act, assessment in the case of the assessee was completed under section 153A of the Act read with section 143(3) of the Act by order dated 26/3/2013 at an income of Rs. 1,93,23,540/-. Though an appeal was preferred by the assessee, subsequently, the same was withdrawn and dismissed by order dated 08/01/2014. Thereafter, the assessee preferred revision application under section 264 of the Act. The Ld. PCIT vide order dated 30/3/2015 passed an order under section 264 of the Act,quashing the assessment made by the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Act holding that the Assessing Officer had committed an error inasmuch as had passed an order in the name of a non-existent company, and therefore, he directed the Assessing Officer to reassess the income in the hands of the existing correct legal entity after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after examination and scrutiny of all the relevant material and verification including the submissions made by the assessee. 3. Pursuant to the directions in the order passed under section 264 of the Act, learned Assessing Officer passed the order dated 23/3/2016 on the name of M/s Pride Residency ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rom the date the amalgamation is made effective. Ld. CIT(A), therefore, held that, though the learned Assessing Officer was directed in section 264 of the Act to reassess the income in the hands of the existing correct legal entity and as a matter of fact was aware of such directions, failed to follow the same while completing the assessment and assessed the income in the hands of a non-existing company, which had ceased to exist after sum of commission, and, therefore, the assessment order rendered void and was liable to be quashed. He accordingly quashed the same. 7. Challenging such an order, Revenue is in this appeal before us stating that the income of the searched company (amalgamating company) was correctly assessed in the hands of the amalgamated company, namely, M/s Pride Residency (P) Ltd (in the case of M/s SPN Milk Products Industries Pvt. Ltd.(Also known as M/s. Smart Tradeline (P) Ltd.),and, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was in error in quashing the same. It is argued by the Ld. DR that the notice was issued in the name of searched company and such an error is curable under section 292-B of the Act. He placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd scrutiny of all the relevant material and verification including the submissions made by the assessee. 11. Learned Assessing Officer, issued notice under section 142 (1) of the Act on 13/1/2016 in the name of the non-existent company SPN with PAN numberAAICS7591K, but did not issue any notice under section 153A and 143(2) of the Act in the name of the existing correct legal entity, namely, Pride Residency Private Limited with PAN number AAGCP0358K. Assessee protested the same while participating the assessment proceedings. Learned Assessing Officer passed the order dated 23/3/2016 assessing the income at Rs. 1,93.23,540/- on the name of M/s. Pride Residency (P) Ltd (in the case of M/s SPN Milk Products Industries Pvt. Ltd.). 12. Against this assessment order, when the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), Ld. CIT(A) after considering the material before him reached a factual conclusion that the Assessing Officer is aware of the directions issued by the Ld. PCIT in the order under section 264 of the Act to the effect that the assessment made in the hands of the existing correct legal entity which fact he mentioned in the assessment order itself but issued notice to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correct legal entity after giving proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and after the examination, scrutiny of all the relevant material and verification, including the submissions made by the assessee; and that to such an extent the directions may be treated as a directions under section 150 of the Act. 15. On a careful perusal of the impugned order, we do not find any factual error in the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) that being aware of the specific directions given by the Ld. PCIT, and having reproduced such directions in the assessment order itself, and in spite of such clear and specific directions, the learned Assessing Officer repeated the earlier action of service of notice and the completion of assessment upon amalgamating company, which is easy to exist. So these facts do not admit of any doubt that in spite of the clear directions given by the Ld. PCIT under section 264 of the Act the learned Assessing Officer failed to comply with the same and repeated the earlier action of service of notice and completion of assessment on the amalgamating company which has ceased to exist. 16. Adverting to the contention of the Revenue regarding the aforesaid defect being c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... xisting legal entity. However, there is failure on the part of the learned Assessing Officer to comply with the said direction inasmuch as he issued notices to the non-existent company and completed the assessment on it.
18. Further, under similar circumstances, in the case of a group company a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in ACIT vs. M/s. Pride Redidency (P) Ltd (ITA No. 4176/Del/2017) by order dated 12/12/2019 upheld the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in crashing the assessment order that was framed in case of the nonexisting company. In that case also the assessment was framed against "M/s. Pride Residency (P) Ltd.(in the case of M/s.SatkarFincap Ltd.)," instead of M/s Pride Residency private limited. The facts of such case are on all fours with the facts of this case.In this factual situation we are of the considered opinion that there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. The reasoning given by the Ld. CIT(A) do not suffer any illegality or irregularity. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the grounds and accordingly dismissed the same.
19. In the result appeal of the Revenue is dismissed
Pronounced in open court on this the 9th day of December, 2021. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
