9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (4) TMI 1218X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2018-19. served through e-filing portal on even date (b) Our clients were not aware that the NFAC has passed the order and uploaded the same on the e-filing portal (c) On taking updates of pending income-tax matters of the Group towards the end of January, 2023, the management of our clients noticed that the NFAC has already passed an order for assessment year 2018-19, and partially allowed the appeal. (d) that the management immediately sent the order to the accounts team for further action and to prepare and file an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Further, it would not be out of place to mention that there is absolutely no mala fide intention on the part of our clients for the aforesaid delay. No benefit would accrue to them on account of not filing of appeal within the due date. As such, you will appreciate that the error in not filing of appeal is, on facts, bona fide. In view of the above, we on behalf of our clients urge you to condone the delay in filing the appeal under reference and admit the same for disposal on merits. Please find enclosed an Affidavit of the Managing Director of the appellant-company, narrating the said facts." 3. After hearing b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... account by invoking provisions of Section 40(a)(ia) of the Act." 4. Whereas the Revenue has raised the following grounds:- "1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Id. CIT (Appeals) was not justified in allowing claim of deduction u/s 801A of the Act amounting to Rs. 10,14,22,382/-"? 2. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee has not fulfilled the conditions laid down for claiming deduction u/s 801A of the Act"? 3. "On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee was involved in carrying out work in the nature of rehabilitation whereas there is no reference to the term "road widening" anywhere in Work Order and has not carried out any work of development of new infrastructure facility or maintaining the same"? 4. "On the facts and in the circumstance of the case and in law the ld. CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate the fact that the assessee upon completion of the contractual obligations has been paid the agreed contract price as per work completed whereas section 801A stipulates d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... atil Constructions Ltd. has been amalgamated with Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Ltd w.e.f. 01/04/2018 and therefore, the issuance of notice u/s. 143(2) as well as the order passed by the AO is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 7. The brief facts qua the legal issue raised are that, M/s. M.B. Patil Constructions Ltd was incorporated on 23/01/2003, which was mainly engaged in the business of execution of civil infrastructure development contracts and had filed its return of income on 30/11/2018 for A.Y. 2018-19 admitting total income of Rs. 13,01,48,180/- after claiming deduction u/s. 80IA of Rs. 10,14,22,382/-. It has also declared share profit from joint venture of PCIPL and MBPCL of Rs. 12,11,123/- which was not taxable in the hands of the assessee company being share profit. The assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B was completed on 26/07/2021 in the name of M/s. M.B. Patil Constructions Ltd., which had ceased to exist at the time of assessment proceedings, determining the taxable income of Rs. 169,61,21,740/- after making the following additions:- Sl.No. Particulars Amt. in Rs. 1 Disallowance of claim of deduction u/s 80IA 10,14,22,382/- 2 Addition on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /2021 and others order dated 19/10/2022, wherein the Tribunal has discussed both the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court including M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.(supra) and have explained entire concept of law on this point. 11. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that assessee has filed the return of income in the name of M/s. M.B. Patil Constructions Ltd. and since assessee's case was covered under CASS parameters which were identified from ITR filed by the assessee on 30/11/2018 and since return was selected for scrutiny, it has picked up the PAN and name mentioned in the ITR. Further, the notices were delivered on the e-mail ID mentioned in the said ITR that [email protected]. He further submitted that not only the notices were valid but also the conduct of the assessee during the assessment proceedings is also misleading and in his written submissions he has highlighted the following points:- 3.2 The conduct of the assessee during the assessment proceedings has been misleading. 3.2.1 The assessment proceedings were conducted by the DCIT, Circle 1(2)(2), Mumbai and thereafter from 19-10-2020 onwards, assessment proceedings were continued by the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal an additional ground was raised before the ITAT, that the notice u/s 143(2) was issued and assessment order was made on non-existent entity. 3.4 The conduct of the amalgamated company during the assessment proceedings was lacking in propriety. 3.4.1 At the stage of assessment and first appellate proceedings, the amalgamated entity i.e Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd did not participate in the course of the proceedings. The facts related to the amalgamation and the continuance of assessment proceedings of amalgamating entity in its own name were never brought to the notice of the A.O or the CIT(A). IL was never plainly stated that the meet was not in existence. This was despite the fact that it was incumbent upon the successor of the assessee to represent the assessee in the proceedings before the tax authorities. 3.5 The original PAN of the assessee (AAECM08068) mentioned in the notice u/s 143(2) and assessment order remains in existence. 3.5.1 The scheme of amalgamation of M B Patil Construction Ltd with Patil Construction and Infrastructure Ltd was approved by the NCLT, Mumbai Bench vide its order dated 29-11-2018. The scheme was deemed to be effectiv ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act vide letter dated 27/07/2018 filed on 02/08/2018, both by erstwhile company M.B. Patil Construction Ltd. and also by M/s. Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Ltd about the proposed scheme of merger and also intimated to the ld. AO that M/s. Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Ltd. alongwith copy of NCLT order as per the letter incorporated above. The said letter bears the receiving stamp of the office of the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (2)(3) i.e. the Assessing Officer. Nowhere in the assessment order, the ld. AO has mentioned about this fact that this company is no longer in existence and has already amalgamated with another company, M/s. Patil Constructions and Infrastructure Ltd. The case of the Revenue before us is that, firstly, the return of income was selected by computer aided scrutiny selection which has picked up the case of scrutiny on the basis of ITR filed by erstwhile company, therefore, such a notice issued on M/s. M B Patil Construction Ltd is correct. Another fact which has been harped upon is that the assessee continued to participate before the ld. AO of National Assessment Unit under the faceless assessment scheme and assessee never questioned the v ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed by him u/s. 143(2) is in the name of correct entity and not on a non-existing entity which already stood amalgamated. This co-ordinate Bench in the case of M/s. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd (supra) after discussing the provisions of the Act specially Section 170 of the Companies Act and the effect of amalgamation / merger as per the Companies Act and the judgments relevant on this issue including the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. & Ors vs. M.A. Khader reported in 2 SCC 656 and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT reported in 186 ITR 278., have explained in the following manner:- "16. Section 302 of the Companies Act, 2013 (earlier section 431 of the Companies Act, 1956) relates to dissolution of company, once the affairs of the company are completely wound up. Sections 230 - 232 (earlier sections 391 - 394), deal with compromises, arrangements and amalgamations. Section 232 of the Companies Act deals with merger or amalgamation and states that once NCLT approves the amalgamation and the same is registered by ROC, then the same shall "be deemed to have the eff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tical purposes. United Kingdom Court in the case of M.H. Smith (Plant Hire) Ltd. Vs. D.L. Mainwaring (T/A Inshore), 1986 BCLC 342 (CA), in the context of dissolution of a company that "once a company is dissolved it becomes a nonexistent party and therefore no action can be brought in its name. Thus an insurance company which was subrogated to the rights of another insured company was held not to be entitled to maintain an action in the name of the company after the latter had been dissolved". 18. The aforesaid principle laid down in General Radio & Appliances Co. Ltd. (supra) was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT 186 ITR 278 (SC). Briefly, the facts giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant, Saraswati Industrial Syndicate, was a limited company carrying on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and machinery for sugar mills and other industries. Another company, namely, the Indian Sugar and General Engineering Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Indian Sugar Company") was also manufacturing machinery parts for sugar mills. On September 28, 1962, under the orders of the High Court, the Ind ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ve its identity and was alive for the purposes of section 41(1) of the Act. The Apex court observed as under :- "Generally, where only one company is involved in a change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganization or scheme of arrangement In an amalgamation, two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by one over the other. Reconstruction or amalgamation has no precise legal meaning. Amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company become substantially the shareholders in the company which is to carry on the blended undertakings. There may be amalgamation either by the transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company, or by the transfer of one or more undertakings to an existing company. Strictly, "amalgamation" does not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of the other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edition, Volume 7, para. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effective from 1st July, 2003, Spice ceased to exist. That is the plain and simple effect in law. (b) The scheme of amalgamation itself provided for this consequence, inasmuch as simultaneous with the sanctioning of the scheme, Spice also stood dissolved by specific order of Delhi High Court. With the dissolution of the amalgamating company, its name was struck off from the rolls of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies. (c) A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is a juristic person. It takes its birth and gets life with the incorporation. It dies with the dissolution as per the provisions of the Companies Act. It is trite law that on amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law by relying on the judgment of Apex Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate (Supra) and General Radio and Appliances (Supra). (d) Section 481 of the Companies Act provides for dissolution of the company. The High Court can order dissolution of a company on the grounds stated in section 481 of the Companies Act. The effect of the dissolution is that the company no more survives. The dissolution puts an end to the existence of the company. Court r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted with MSIL)". The assessee argued before the tax/ appellate authorities that an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity was void ab initio, since after amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist. Tax Department was of the view that since name of both the entities were mentioned in the order, the assessment order cannot be declared as invalid. Before the Apex Court, the main contentions of the Revenue were as follows: (a) Names of both amalgamating and amalgamated company was mentioned in the assessment order; (b) Even otherwise, the mistake is curable u/s 292B (c) Assessment and subsequently appeal was represented by Amalgamated company and no prejudice is caused to the parties; (d) In Spice, the final order only referred to the name of nonexistent entity without any reference to the amalgamated company; (e) Even as per decision in Spice, if the order is passed on the resulting company the same shall not be void - hence in present case since both the names were mentioned it cannot be regarded as a jurisdictional defect; (f) Draft assessment order and the final assessment order referred to both the names; (g) In case of Spice, do ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Delhi) (Revenue's SLP dismissed against the same in Pr. CIT vs. BMA Capfin Ltd. [2018] 100 taxmann.com 330/[2019] 260 Taxman 89 (SC)] The Apex Court after taking into consideration submissions of both sides held as follows: a) Under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities; b) The consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist by relying on the judgment of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd vs. CIT (Supra). c) Upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed; d) Prior to the date on which the jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) was issued, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved on 29th January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012; e) Assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143(2). The notice was issued in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der Section 132 of the Act, on 27.08.2008. viii. A total of Rs. 30 crores cash, which was seized- was surrendered in relation to MRPL and other transferor companies, as well as MIPL, on 27.08.2008 in the course of the search operation, when a statement of Mr. Amit Jain was recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act. ix. Upon being issued with a notice to file returns, a return was filed in the name of MRPL on 28.05.2010. Before that, on two dates, i.e., 22/27.07.2010, letters were written on behalf of MRPL, intimating about the amalgamation, but this was for AY 2007-08 (for which separate proceedings had been initiated under Section 153A) and not for AY 2006-07. x. The return specifically suppressed - and did not disclose the amalgamation (with MIPL) - as the response to Query 27(b) was "N.A". xi. The return - apart from specifically being furnished in the name of MRPL, also contained its PAN number. xii. During the assessment proceedings, there was full participation -on behalf of all transferor companies, and MIPL. A special audit was directed (which is possible only after issuing notice under Section 142). Objections to the special audit were filed in respect of portion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he transferee or amalgamated company- which ceases to exist, after amalgamation, is treated as a continuing one, and any benefits, by way of carry forward of losses (of the transferor company), depreciation, etc., are allowed to the transferee. Therefore, unlike a winding up, there is no end to the enterprise, with the entity. The enterprise in the case of amalgamation, continues. iv. There is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL had ceased to exist thereafter; this is an established fact and not in contention. The respondent has relied upon Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) to contend that the notice issued in the name of the amalgamating company is void and illegal. The facts of present case, however, can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki. v. Firstly, in both the relied upon cases, the assessee had duly informed the authorities about the merger of companies and yet the assessment order was passed in the name of amalgamating/non-existent company. However, in the present case, for AY 2006-07, there was no intimation by the assessee regarding amalgamation of the company. The ROI for the AY 2006-07 first filed by the respondent on 30.06.2006 was in the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, MIPL. All these clearly indicate that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability. The AO, on the other hand, had the option of making a common order, with MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts, relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Decor Pvt. Ltd.). viii. The mere choice of the AO in issuing a separate order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot nullify it. Right from the time it was issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order -and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybody's guess, if any refund were due, as to whether MIPL would then say that it is not entitled to it, because the refund order would be issued in favour of a non-existing company (MRPL). Having regard to all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the conduct of the assessee, commencing from the date the search took place, and before all forums, reflects that it consistent ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Supreme Court merely distinguished the facts in Spice and Maruti, while continuing to agree with the fundamental principle that on amalgamation, the amalgamating entity ceases to exist. Thereafter, the Court in paras 34 onwards, held as under: a) No intimation was given to the AO for A.Y 2006-07 [refer para 34]; b) Return filed, pursuant to notice, suppressed the fact of amalgamation. The return was filed in the name of MRPL. Further in Business Reorganization' column it was mentioned "not applicable" [refer para 34, 40]. c) Name of both the companies were mentioned in the order [refer para 34]; d) Assessee before authorities held itself out to be as MRPL [refer para 35]; e) Substantial surrender in survey and search on behalf of MRPL [refer paras 37-38]; f) Facts of present case distinctive [refer para 40]; g) The fact of amalgamation being known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as when statements were recorded of the directors and managing director of the group, was not communicated to the income tax authorities [refer paras 40- 41]. h) Even when MRPL ceased to be in existence, in law, yet appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... partment in their own capacity, due to which the Apex Court affirmed that participation of amalgamated company shall not be regarded as estoppel against law. In the present facts, the participation in the assessment proceedings was by MRPL which held itself as MRPL. d) The relied upon judgment of Saraswati Syndicate (Supra) was decided in relation to assessment issues when the amalgamation was not separately defined under the Act. Specific definition of 'amalgamation" has been incorporated in section 2(1 A) of the Act by way of amendment in 1967. 28. Other relevant observations made in the judgment while expressing the aforesaid opinion and holding that Maruti/ Spice cannot (de-hors facts) be blindly applied in all cases, pointed out following points: a) It has been observed that amalgamation is unlike winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues - enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessment order passed in the name of non-existent entity is invalid, and restored the revenue's appeal along with assessee's cross objections to the file of the Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the issues on merits other than nullity of assessment order. 30. The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. (supra) in our humble opinion, nowhere disagrees with the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) of Hon'ble Delhi High Court , for the reason that:- Firstly, the judgment in Mahagun nowhere disagrees with the principle in Maruti and Spice. In fact, in para 33, the Court categorically held that there is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and ceased to exist thereafter which is an established fact and not in contention. Further the Court held that the respondent has relied upon Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) whereas the facts of present case can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki. Secondly, the judgment by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mahagun Realtors is rendered in peculiar facts and merely holds that the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dings of the Ld. CIT(A) as incorporated supra is not only correct in law but also the facts and hence the order of Ld. CIT(A) is confirmed. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed for both the AY 2013-14 and 2014-15. 16. Exactly on same line Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Inox Wind Energy Ltd vs. Add.CIT reported in (2023) 454 ITR 162 on almost similar kind of fact which in brief were as that, the assessee company was a wholly owned subsidiary of GFL. On 25-01-2021, the composite scheme of arrangement between INOX GFL and assessee was approved by the NCLT and the scheme of merger of INOX and GFL came into operation with effect from 1-4-2020. Also demerger of energy business into assessee-company came into effect from 1-7-2020. The Assessing Officer was informed about said scheme on 10-3-2021 However, return filed by INOX for assessment year 2018-19 was selected for scrutiny for which notice was issued under section 143(2) on 23-9-2019 and thereafter show cause cum draft assessment order was issued in name of erstwhile company or on 23-9-2021. 17. The Hon'ble High Court after discussing various judgments of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A suppressed the fact of amalgamation. Since the conduct of the assessee, commencing from the date of search and before all forums reflected that it consistently held itself as assessee, assessment order passed in the name of the assessee was valid. The assessee company MRPL was amalgamated with MIPL with effect from 1-42006 vide order of the High Court. Post amalgamation, search was conducted at premises of assessee-amalgamating company and discrepancies were noticed in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A in the name of amalgamating company i.e. MRPL, which filed return of income for the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the assessee company filed return in the name of MRPL. It appears that the Assessing Officer completed the assessment and made an addition. The Tribunal quashed the said order. The MRPL was not in existence when the assessment order was passed. The High Court upheld the said order. 19.1 It was noted by the Apex Court that no indication about amalgamation was given by assessee during search operations and return filed pursuant to notice issued under section 153A suppressed fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against the law. While so doing the Court had also relied on the decision of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and the Court held that there was no reason as to why to take a different view. There is a value which the Court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view taken by the Apex Court in relation to the respondent for Assessment Year 2011-12 was found to be necessary to be adopted in respect of the appeal, as otherwise, the same would result into 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. 20.3 Distinguishing the facts from the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), the Court held otherwise. In both the cases the assessee had duly informed the authorities abou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the facts of each case. In such circumstances, the Apex Court had not sustained the High Court's order and set it aside. 21. Reverting to the facts of the matter on hands and equating the same with the ration laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. (supra), Inox Renewables Ltd. (the transferee company) was incorporated on 11-10-2010 under the Companies Act. For the Assessment Year 2018-19 the return of income was filed declaring the total income at nil. The case for scrutiny was selected and the notice under section 143(2) was issued on 23-9-2019. On 25-1-2021, the composite scheme of arrangement between Inox Renewables Limited and GFL Limited and the petitioner company was approved by the NCLT and the appointed date for the merger of Inox Renewables Limited and GFL Limited was fixed on 1-4-2010 and demerger of energy business into the petitioner company was from 1-72020. The scheme since came into operation from 9-2-2021, the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer received the intimation through email on 10-3-2021. The petitioner informed the respondent about such sanction of the composite scheme on 31-8-2021 and o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ............. 21.3 Thereafter, a communication was sent to the petitioner by Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi intimating that the Board of Directors of the Company, as a part of business restructuring, has approved composite scheme of arrangement as per the details given at Part A and Part B. After various queries, which had been raised, certain documents were requested to be taken on record. Thereafter, on 25-9-2021, in reply to the show cause notice dated 23-9-2021, justifications were given as to why the assessment should not be completed as per the draft assessment order. It also complained of less time given for compliance as the email was received on 23-9-2021 and the time given was only upto 25-9-2021, which was less than two days. However, it replied to the various aspects, which had been raised by the department. It has been argued before us by Mr. S.N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate for the petitioner that had there been no participation by the company, there could have been the possibility of the order having passed on the basis of no representation, which would have also caused serious prejudice. It is also further pointe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... company, with all its obligations, would file return of income and also continue the process, but once assessment order is passed against non-existing company, there would be no cure, even for filing of the appeal. Once it is found that the assessment is framed, in the instant case, in the name of the non-existing company, as held hereinabove, that surely does not remain the procedural irregularity, which can be cured under the provision of section 292B of the Act. 24. The assessment framed in the name of the existing company requires to be quashed. This Court has chosen to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India although the plea of alternative remedy of an appeal, is much emphasized upon by the respondent. Considering the fact that there is a non-existing company and the amalgamated company is a separate legal entity, these arguments cannot be endorsed by the Court and, moreover, despite being aware of the settled position of the law, when all facts in the instant case can be equated with those existing in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and when the respondent authorities have chosen to ignore them despite reiterative requests on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
