9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (2) TMI 280X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... R. ORDER Per Beena Pillai, Judicial Member This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A) Bengaluru-2 dated 28.2.2019 for the assessment year 2008-09. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in this appeal are reproduced as follows:- 1. That the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) in so far it is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in justifying the action of the assessing officer in passing an order against M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. even though the said entity does not exist on the date ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,559 and the freight of ₹ 10,23,619 are not the expenditure incurred by DTA unit but by EHTP unit. 10. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the finding of the learned assessing officer that the consumable expenditure of ₹ 34,99,559 and the freight expenditure of ₹ 10,23,619 are expenses incurred by EHTP unit is perverse as not supported by any materials on record and is in fact contrary to the materials on record. 11 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have reduced the profits of EHTP unit by a sum of ₹ 45,23,178 (₹ 34,99,559 + 10,23,619). 12. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have reduced the subcont ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing services to various customers in India from a Domestic Tariff Area unit (DTA unit for short). Assessment was completed on 23.12.2010 for the AY 2008-09 by disallowing the claim u/s. 10A of the Act amounting to ₹ 13,07,508. The assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal. 2.1. It was stated that when the assessment order was passed, M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. merged with M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd., as per the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High court by order dated 16.7.2010. Therefore, the appeals were filed in the name of Centum Electronics Ltd. When the matter stood thus, the Ld. DCIT, Circle 11(2), Bangalore issued notice/s 148 of the Act to M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. M/s. Centum Electronics Lt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (since merged with M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd.) . 2.4. In the reassessment order dated 21.3.2016, the PAN was quoted as AAKCS7429L . It is submitted that this PAN is the PAN of M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. The Ld. AR thus submitted that, it is clear that, the assessment has been made in the name of Solectron EMS India Ltd. The facts stated above prove that M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. does not exist as an entity w.e.f. 1.4.2009 being the appointed date as per the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16.7.2010. He submitted that it is now well settled that assessment order cannot be passed in the name of amalgamating/transferor-company. The Ld. AR has relied on the following decisions: a) Marshall Sons Co. (Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... correctly issued and assessee appeared before the Ld. AO. He further stated that assessee is not at all aggrieved by mere mention of the name of the assessee prior to its merger. 2.8. With respect to this argument of the Ld. Sr. DR that notice under section 148 was issued in the name of merged company, the Ld. AR referred to paragraph No. 1 of the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Spice Infotainment Ltd(supra) and, therefore, submitted that the impugned assessment order does not stand the test of the law. Hon'ble Court also held that mere participation in assessment proceedings by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. 3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2014 was also issued in the name of a nonexistent entity. However, though this notice was issued prior to the 'appointed date', would not make any difference. Even the participation by the assessee in the assessment proceedings would also not make any difference because the facts remains that the assessment order has been passed by the assessing officer in the name of a nonexistent company. Hon'ble Supreme court held as under:- 33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
