9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 1483X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company, the order of assessment would not merely be a procedural defect but would render it void. Recently, the apex court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.[ 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] despite the fact that the AO 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 fundamentally at odds with 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. The stand of the Revenue that the reassess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he non-existence of ETPL on account of its amalgamation with Sterlite Technologies Limited with effect from the appointed date, i. e., September 29, 2015. It was therefore emphasized that since the notice had been issued in the name of a non-existing entity, the same was non est and void ab initio and, therefore, the reassessment proceedings were sought to be withdrawn. 2.3. Notwithstanding the objections of the petitioner, a show-cause notice dated March 22, 2022 was issued requiring the non-existent entity, i. e., ETPL to show cause as to why the proposed variation be not made. In the said notice however the Assessing Officer sought to legitimize the initiation of reassessment proceedings against ETPL on the ground that the reassessment p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in the present case was passed, followed by the penalty notice under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. It is therefore clear that the notice under section 148 of the Act, the assessment order as also the penalty notice have been issued in the name of a non-existing entity, despite having been informed about the factum of amalgamation as per the scheme approved by the High Courts of Gujarat and Bombay. 6. The order of assessment and the notices impugned are clearly untenable in law in view of the apex court judgment in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT 186 ITR 278 (SC), wherein the following principles were formulated (page 282 of 186 ITR) : 5. Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the right ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the factum of amalgamation of a company had been brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer, despite which the proceedings are continued and an order of assessment passed in the name of non-existent company, the order of assessment would not merely be a procedural defect but would render it void. 7. Recently, the apex court in the case of Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC), reiterated the aforementioned principles and held as under (page 637 of 416 ITR) : 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
