9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') for the assessment year 2016-2017 against Siri Drugs India Private Limited. The aforesaid company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited since had got merged with the petitioner's Company under the scheme of amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2015, the challenge is also to the consequence notice under Section 148 of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sundari R. Pisupati, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 & 2 and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. A Company Petition was filed before this High Court vide C.P. No. 41 of 2016 seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of Siri Drugs India Private ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce when it stands issued against the Company which ceases to exist and which became non-existing since 01.04.2015. Though the objection was raised by the petitioner on issuance of notice on a non-existing Company, the respondent No. 1 ignoring the said fact held that it was a fit case for issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2016- 2017. It is this proceedings which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India itself in one of the recent decisions in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki (India) Limited [2019] (416 ITR 613) dealing with a somewhat similar situation held that initiating proceedings and framing of assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the proceedings drawn. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents/ Income Tax Department opposing the petition contended that it is a case where admittedly, on the amalgamation of the two Companies, neither the transferee nor the transferor intimated the respondent authorities in respect of the amalgamation. It was also contended that since the petitioner's Company or the merged Company failed in their duty and responsibility of intimation of amalgamation to the respondent authorities, in the eyes of law, the said Companies were in existence. Thereafter, the issuance of the notices cannot be faulted with, nor can be the same said to be bad in law. 12. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that now ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i) and contended that the High Court of Delhi in an identical set of facts had refused to entertain the writ petition and directed the amalgamated Company to raise all these objections and grounds before the authorities concerned themselves. 15. Having heard the contentions and submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of records, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case which needs to be considered is that; C.P. No. 41 of 2016 was allowed by High Court approving the scheme of amalgamation with M/s. Virchow Drugs Limited vide order dated 13.03.2016. Further, in the approval of the scheme of amalgamation by High Court, the transferor Company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited got merged w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y proceedings/assessment initiated against an amalgamated Company is a nullity in the eye of law. 19. What is also relevant at this juncture is that, while deciding the said issue, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the two judgments cited by the learned counsel on either side i.e. Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 247 CTR 500 relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP, supra, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, both being the judgments from the High Courts. It is thereafter that the Hon'ble Supreme Court reached to the aforesaid conclusion that the notices and proceedings initiated against the amalgamated Company deserves to be s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable. For the reasons, we find no merit in the appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 21. It is also relevant at this juncture to take note of yet another recent decision of the High Court of Bombay in the case of SLSA INDIA (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2023) 7 NYPCTR 174 (Bom), wherein the Bombay High Court reiterating the vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
