9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (2) TMI 1634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the assessee company on 31.3.2008 for which acknowledgement was received on 1.4.2008 due to glitches in the income tax network on the night of 31.3.2008. 1.1. The Ld Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law in not considering the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court approving the merger on 17.4.2007 with retrospective effect from 1st October, 2005. 1.2. The Ld Assessing Officer has erred both on facts and in law in not including in its draft assessment order the transactions relating to the erstwhile companies Satcom Broadband Equipments Ltd,. and Bharti Airtel Ltd. which pursuant to the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court approving the scheme of amalgamation had lost its identity and its operating results had become ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 394 of the Companies Act was passed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court on 17.4.2007 and as per this order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court, the amalgamation was effective w.e.f. 1.10.2005. It is submitted that hence, it was necessary for the assessee company to file a revised return pursuant to the merger and such revised return was to be filed by the assessee company on or before 31.3.2008. It is also submitted that the assessee company filed revised return on 31.3.2008, but due to glitches in the Income tax network of the Income Tax Department, the acknowledgement was received on 1.4.2008 and hence the revised return filed by the assessee company was not considered by the authorities below and it was not acted upon. It is submitted that eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ised return filed by the assessee company on 1.4.2008 in accordance with the amalgamation of the two companies as per the high court judgment dated 17.4.2007. Ld DR of the revenue had nothing to say in view of this judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court. 4. We have considered the submissions of Ld AR of the assessee and have gone through the material available on record. We find that it is noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the return was revised by the assessee company on 1.4.2008 declaring an income of Rs.437.43 lakhs as against the income declared by the assessee in the original return filed on 30.11.2006 of Rs.463.09 lakhs. It is also noted by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that such revised re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e facts, it was held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court that only course open to the revenue would be to act as per the scheme of amalgamation by the High Court effective from 1..1.2004 which means that the tax authorities are bound to take note of the state of affairs of the assessee as on 1.1.2004 and the return filed reflecting the same cannot be ignored on the strength of section 139(5) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was also held that merits or otherwise of returns filed however is a matter of assessment for the authorities to consider and pass order in accordance with law. Respectfully following this judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court, we hold that in the present case also, the revenue has to take on record and consider the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
