Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
The Dy. Cit., Central Circle-2(1),, ... vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.,, ... on 9 January, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "A" BENCH
Before: Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member
And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member
IT(SS)A No. 245 /Ahd/2014
Assessment Year 2006-07
The DCIT, Intas Pharmaceuticals
Central Circle-2(1), Ltd. 203, Chinubhai
Ahmedabad Vs Centre, Nr. Nehru
(Appellant) Bridge, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad
PAN: AAACI5120L
(Respondent)
Revenue by: Ms. Aparna Agrawal, CIT-D.R.
Assessee by: Shri V.R. Chokshi, A.R.
Date of hearing : 19-12-2018
Date of pronouncement : 09-01-2019
आदेश /ORDER
PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:-
This revenue's appeal for A.Y. 2006-07, arises from order of the CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad dated 28-03-2014, in proceedings under section 143(3)/263/153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961; in short "the Act".
I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
2. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 43,49,59,470/- made on account of disallowance of business loss of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,67,16,865/- made on account of disallowance of unabsorbed depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 22,95,000/- made on account of disallowance of sales promotion."
3. The fact in brief is that the assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of pharmaceutical product. There was a search action carried out u/s. 132 of the act in the case of the assessee on 5.5.2008. Thereafter, the assessment u/s. 153A of the act was finalized on 30th December, 2009 and the assessing officer has allowed the assessee to set off of business losses of M/s Dolphin Laboratory Ltd. (the company which was amalgamated with the assessee company) to the extent of Rs. 43,49,59,470/-). The assessing officer has also allowed the set off of unabsorbed depreciation of Rs.4,67,16,865/-. Subsequently, the CIT, Central Circle-2 Ahmedabad passed order u/s. 263 of the act on 26th March, 2012 and set aside the assessment to the file of assessing officer to verify the following points:-
"While refraining the assessment order, the Assessing Officer will also consider the following points:-
(i) On verification of the scheme of rehabilitation, it was noticed that the 'cut of date', the date for consideration of relief and concessions as envisaged In the scheme was taken as 30.9.2006. The 'appointed date' or the date of amalgamation was 1.1.2006. Effective date was the date on which the copy of sanctioned scheme by BIFR would be filed with ROC. It is noticed that M/s. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd has claimed brought forward losses of M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. in return of A.Y. 2006-07. The claim of such business losses amounts to Rs.43,49,59,470/-. The A.O. has allowed the above claim of the assessee vide order u/s. 143(3)/153A dated 3O.I2.2009. The A.O. has also allowed the claim of unabsorbed depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories in AY 2006-07 and in A.Y. 2007-08. Thus the total benefit availed by the assessee company as a result of amalgamation of Dolphin Laboratories is of Rs. 51,53,11,326/-. In the reassessment proceedings, the A.O. would consider all the points as mentioned in the instant order and I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 3 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
rework out allowable brought forward losses and depreciation (if any) in the case of assessee company.
(ii) On verification of the scheme of rehabilitation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. before BIFA was noticed that the 'Cut of date' is 30/09/06 i.e. FT. 2006-07 relevant to the AY '-08. The assessee has claimed business losses of Rs. 43,49,59,470/- in AY 2006-07 and passing order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act the A.O. has allowed this claim . Apart from it the assessee has also claimed unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 4,44,21,865/- and during the finalization of assessment order, the A.O. has allowed the claim of unabsorbed depreciation up to Rs. 5,76,63,865/- which was further reduced to Rs. 4,67,16,865/- as a result of rectification vide order dated 03.02.2010. The A.O. has also allowed to carry forward the remaining unabsorbed depreciation of Rs. 3,36,34,991/-. This point shall be examined by the A.O. in re-assessment proceedings. The A.O. shall also decide the year of allowability of brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation.
(iii) It is further noticed that Para 6 page 8 to 10 of the Scheme (of BIFR) narrates the status of assets and liabilities as on 30.9.2003 as well as on 31.12.2005. Therein, the total accumulated losses are mentioned at Rs.10.89 crores whereas estimated income- tax benefit u/s. 72A of the Income-tax Act are estimated to be Rs.17.45 crores in Para 7 of the 'proceedings of hearing dated 26.4.2007 as well as in Para 11.4 page 17 of the Scheme. Therefore it appears that there was a big gap in the figure of actual losses of Rs.10.89 crores and estimated set off of carry forward losses and depreciation claimed to have been available to IPL. It appears from the records available with this office, that this aspect has not been verified by the then A.O. while passing, the order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The A.O. should verify this point in re-assessment proceedings.
(iv) Further, it was noticed that the important aspect of the scheme (before BIFR) pertains to income-tax is sub-para 5 ofPara!4page 26 on Relief and Concessions. It is noted that in 'other sub-paras of these section, specific directions have been given to Banks and other Govt. agencies for, compliance. Whereas in Para 5, the BIFR has issued directions 'to consider' applicability of provisions ofSec.41(l), carry forward and set off of unabsorbed losses and depreciation; condonation of delay in filling of audited accounts. The BIFR has not directed as to what is to be done except regarding waiver of interest on penalty of delayed payment of income-tax dues. It has only directed the department of income-tax 'to consider' various aspects. On verification of details available with this office it appears that the then A.O. has not verified the following aspects and issues. Accordingly, the A.O. is directed to also verify and take note of the following points in re- assessment proceedings :-
(a) In pursuance of BIFR' directions, the D1T (Recovery) has issued direction vide their letter No. 2(1739)/DIT(R)/BIFR/2006-07/396 dated 28.04.2010. In these 'directions, the BIFR has clarified that "field authorities may take necessary action as per law in the light of fact that no relief and concession has been allowed to the sick company or healthy company by this Directorate beyond the provisions of IT. Act." The A.O. should follow the directions of DIT(R).
(b) As per the Scheme, the liabilities of loans from bank and creditors have been reduced from 11.39 crores to 3.90 crores. Whether the A.O. has verified and ascertained whether any order has been passed regarding the applicability of the provisions ofSec.41(l) of the l.T Act and the taxability of such remissions / waivers in the hands of amalgamating company ?
(c) Whether the unabsorbed losses or depreciation was quantified by the assessing officer in hands of M/s. DLL by way assessment or not? If not, whether such unqualified losses/depreciation could be allowed to be set off?
(d) Whether set off losses beyond 8 assessment years will be in conflict with the provisions of sec. 72A or not?
(e) In the re-assessment proceedings, the A.O. would consider explanation of the assessee in connection with difference in assessee's claim in set off of business losses / I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 4 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
unabsorbed depreciation and other deductions in original return and in the return filed in response to notice issued u/s.153A of l.T. Act.
(v) As mentioned in the instant order at para 6.4, the A.O., while passing the impugned assessment order, has not procured and verified all the details of M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. In the re-assessment proceedings, the A.O. would call for and verify all the relevant documents / details and information relating to M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd, and then decide the allowable carried forward losses and depreciation (if any) of M/s. Dolphin Laboratories Ltd, in the assessment of the assessee company i.e. IPL...."
M/s. Intas Pharmaceutical Ltd. has claimed brought forward loss of M/s. Dolphin Laboratory Ltd in return of assessment year 2006-07. The claim of such business loss amounting to Rs.43,49,59,470/- was allowed by the assessing officer vide order u/s. 143(3)/153A dated 30th December, 2009. During the assessment, the assessee has explained that the benefits of set off of brought forward business loss and unabsorbed depreciation of M/s. Dolphin Pharmaceutical Ltd. was available to the assessee company as per the provisions of section 72A of the income tax act and as per the rehabilitation scheme of BIFR the Dolphin Laboratory Ltd. would be merged with the assessee company with its appointed date being 1st Jan, 2006 of assessment year 2006-07. The assessee claimed that the set off of losses and depreciation claimed by the assessee was as per the provision of section 72A of the act and it was also stated that the amalgamation was as per section 2(1B) of the income tax act. It was further stated that by the assessee that the accumulated losses and unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamating company shall be deemed to be the loss or as the case may be allowance for unabsorbed depreciation of the amalgamated company for the previous year in which the amalgamation was effected and other provisions of this act relating to set off and carry forward loss and I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 5 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
allowance for depreciation shall apply accordingly. The assessee has also placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Marshal Sons & Com. Ltd 223 ITR 809(SC). The assessing officer has not accepted the submission of the assessee. He has stated that the cut-off date for consideration of relief and concession as envisaged in the scheme has been taken as 30th Sep, 2006. The assessing officer was of the view that the assessee was not eligible for set off of brought forward losses of Dolphin Laboratory Ltd. in assessment year 2006-07.He stated that in the case of the assessee the date of amalgamation was 1.1.2006, however, the cut - off date was 30.09.2006 and the appointed date cannot be considered as cut off date. Consequently, the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of set off of business loss and depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. Aggrieved assessee has filed appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) has allowed the claim of the assessee. Relevant part of the decision of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-
"7. The facts of the case and submissions made on behalf of the appellant have been carefully considered. It is observed that the appellant co. had claimed the set off of unabsorbed losses and depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd.(aggregate amount Rs 48,16,76,335/) which amalgamated with the appellant company as per the scheme rehabilitation sanctioned by BIFR vide letter dated 17-5-2007 against business income for the year under appeal.
8. It is observed that the scheme of amalgamation approved by BIFR referred to the following dates:
> "The cut off date is the date for consideration of reliefs and concessions as envisaged under the scheme and has been taken as 30-09-2006. In this connection, it is reiterated that date is for consideration of reliefs and concessions under the BIFR scheme and not for the Income tax Act. > Appointed date or the date of amalgamation is 01-01-06 > Effective date is the date on which the copy of sanctioned scheme by BIFR would be filed with ROC."
9. According to the A.O. cut off date was for consideration of relief and concessions and it is 30-9-2006 as envisaged in the scheme. According to him, the concession and reliefs envisaged in the scheme from Central Government is from DIT(Recovery), Department of Income-tax, New Delhi and that DIT (Recovery) was part of the concessions and reliefs.
I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 6 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
The A.O. was of the view that therefore, the cut off date is the date for consideration of the reliefs and concessions as envisaged in section 72A. Accordingly, it is held by him that the assessee is not eligible for set off of brought forward losses of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. in assessment year 2006-07. He has held that the unabsorbed, depreciation and losses of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. is allowed to be carried forward in A.Y. 2007-08. Accordingly he has disallowed the claim of set off of unabsorbed depreciation and losses in A.Y. 2006-07.
10. As against this, the appellant has submitted that as per scheme of amalgamation, the appointed date which is 1-1-2006 is the date of amalgamation and that the amalgamation has to be considered as effective from that date. It is submitted that the cut off date as envisaged in the scheme is for the concerned agencies to consider the relief and concessions before such cut off date i.e. 30-9-2006 and to raised objections, if any, before such date. However, since date of amalgamation i.e., appointed date is 1-1-2006, the appellant is entitled for set off of brought forward losses and depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. as per said date of amalgamation. It is pointed out that it is not in dispute that the appellant had provided all the details as per rule 9C and that no defect has been pointed out by the A.O. in the assessment order. The A.R. has pointed out that the A.O. has in para 9.6 of the assessment order stated that the appellant had furnished details regarding fulfillment of condition as mentioned in Rule 9C of the income-tax Rules along with relevant details and such details are verified and placed on record.
11. Having considered the scheme of amalgamation as sanctioned by BIFR and the facts of the case and the relevant court decisions relied upon by the appellant, I am of the considered view that as per the scheme of amalgamation the appointed date i.e. 1-1- 2006 is the date of amalgamation and that it is also seen that this date has not been changed in the order of BIFR. Accordingly, considering the ratio of the decisions referred to above, in my considered view, the amalgamation has taken effect from the date 1-1- 2006. In the circumstances, the unabsorbed losses and depreciation of amalgamating company are available as per section 72A of the IT. Act to the appellant for set off in the year of amalgamation i.e. in the F.Y. 2005-06. The A.O. was therefore, not justified in holding that the cut off date is to be considered for such set off being the date for consideration of relief and concessions envisaged in the same. Accordingly I hold that the A.O. ought to have allowed such set off to the appellant in A.Y. 2006-07.The ground of appeal succeeds."
4. During the course of appellate proceedings before us ld. departmental representative has supported the order of assessing officer and contended that the assessee was not eligible for set off of brought forward losses of Dolphin Laboratory Ltd on the basis of cut
-off date 30.09.2006. On the other hand the ld. counsel has submitted paper book containing detail of information and submission made by the assessee before the assessing officer and Ld.CIT Central and Ld. CIT(A) during the course of assessment and appellate proceedings. He has vehemently contended that the scheme of rehabilitation of BIFR was effective from the appointed I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 7 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
date 01-01-2006 and the assessing officer has incorrectly taken cut off of date of 30th Sep, 2006 which was pertaining to consideration of relief and concession of the scheme. He has further submitted that as per BIFR scheme of amalgamation the Dolphin Laboratory Ltd. was a sick company which was amalgamated with the assessee company and the date of merger was 01-01-2006 and it fall in assessment year 2006-07. He has also mentioned that as per the appointed date 01-01-2006, the ld. CIT(A) has correctly allowed the carry forward and set off loss as per provision of section 72A of the act on fulfillment of stipulated conditions of Rule 9C of the IT rule.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record carefully. In the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.ws. 153A of the act, the assessing officer has allowed the claim of asssesse to set off of business losses of M/s. Dolphin Laboratory ( the company which was merged with the assessee company) to the extent of Rs. 43,49,59,470/-. Subsequently, vide order u/s. 143(3)/153A r.w.s. 263 passed on 28-01-2013 the assessing officer has disallowed the claim of the set off of business losses of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. on the ground that cut off date for amalgamation was 30-09-2006 and not the appointed dated 01-01-2016 for amalgamating Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. with the assessee company. It is noticed that BFIR has approved the scheme of rehabilitation of Dolphin Laboratory vide order dated 7th May, 2007. The assessee had claimed brought forward business losses and depreciation of said Dolphin Laboratory I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 8 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Ltd. The detail of such losses and deprecation claimed before/allowed in the assessment order are given as under:-
Particulars Amount of Losses/ Year in which the Amount of the losses unabsorbed depreciation of losses are allowed allowed to be set off by Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. to be set off the A.V. against the carried forward to A.Y. 2006-07 against the income income (in Rs.) (in Rs.) Business Loss 43,49,59,470 A. Y. 2006-07 43,49,59,470 Unabsorbed 8,03,51,856 A. Y. 2006-07 4,67,16,865 Depreciation A.Y. 2007-08 3,36,34,991 Total 51,53,11,326 - 51,53,11,326 It is noticed that amalgamating company Dolphin Laboratories Ltd was amalgamated with the assessee company as per the scheme of Rehabilitation approved by the BIFR. The BIFR had approved the scheme of Rehabilitation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. vide order dated 17-05-2017. The assessee company had claimed brought forward business losses and depreciation of the amalgamating company Dolphin Laboratories Ltd. In the assessment order dated 30-12-2009, the assessing officer has allowed the claim of set off of brought forward business loss of Rs. 43,49,59,470/- however the ld. CIT(Central Circle-2) Ahmedabad passed order u/s. 263 of the act on the basis of the order of the BIFR in which the Director of Income Tax (Recovery), New Delhi was directed to consider the claim of the assessee. The cut of date for consideration of relief and concessions as envisaged in the scheme was taken as 30.09.2006 and the appointed date or the date of amalgamation was 01-01-2006. The appointed date or the date of amalgamation 01-01-2006 was relevant I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 9 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
to F.Y. 2005-06 and assessment year 2006-07. However, the cut of date 30-09-2006 F.Y. 2006-07 was relevant to assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has claimed business losses of Rs. 43,49,59,470/- in assessment year 2006-07 on the basis of the appointed date or the date of amalgamation 0-01-2006 which was also allowed by the assessing officer vide order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the act. However in the assessment order on 28-01-2013 u/s. 143(3)/153A/263 of the act the assessing officer has held that the cut off date was 30-09-2006 for considering various reliefs and concessions as mentioned in the order of DIT (Recovery) 28-04-2010 and the assessee was not eligible for the set off of the brought forward losses of Dolphin laboratories Ltd. in assessment year 2006-
07. The assessing officer has further held that total amount of Rs.
6,21,69,232/- as unabsorbed depreciation of Dolphin Laboratories Ltd and business loss of Rs. 40,07,36,522/- of Dolphin Laboratories is allowed to be carried forward in assessment year 2007-08. At the outset, we will discuss the nature of cut off date 30-09-2006. It is undisputed fact that it is the cut off date for consideration of following relief and concessions envisaged in the scheme:-
"A) Secured creditors B) Unsecured creditors C) The company (Dolphin Laboratories Ltd.) D) New promoters workers & staff members of DLL.
E) Central Govt.
1) Central Excise., Ahmedabad
2) D.G.F.T. Mumbai, Calcutta, Ahmedabad
3) Drug price equdiration cell, New Delhi
4) DGIT, New Delhi
5) DIT (Recovery), Department of Income-tax, New Delhi
6) Department of company affairs, New Delhi
7) Central provident fund commissioners F) State Govt.
1) Govt. of Gujarat
I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 10
DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
2) Department of Sales Tax
G. Securites & exchange Board of India
H. Stock Exchange."
It is also relevant to reproduce the different clauses from the scheme of BIFR vide case no.206/2004 in RE: M/s Dolphin Laboratories Ltd.
which demonstrate that the date of amalgamation was 1.1.2006 as under:-
"(iv) DITR-Income Tax benefit u/s. 72A of the I.T. Act amounting to Rs. 1745 lakhs, was estimated based on the carry forward loss of DLL upto the date of merger. The date of merger, 1.1.2006, falls in assessment year (A.Y.) 2006-07 (F.Y. 2005-06) wherein IPL (the transferee company) had taxable income of around Rs. 55 crores. As a result, the entire tax benefit would accrue in AY 2006-07 (FY 2005-06). Further, apart from TDS liability of Rs. 4 lakhs the company had no other liabilities on account of Income Tax. The company had submitted all the required details to the I.T. Deptt. Immediately on receipt of their letter on 19.4.2007. As suggested by the Counsel for DITR, the words "to consider" may be added before the reliefs claimed from them.
Sales Tax (ST)- While ST dues of Rs.84.29 lakhs had been included for payment in the rehabilitation scheme, the company had preferred appeals in respect of ST liabilities to the tune of Rs.284.33 lakhs which had arisen due to non-submission of forms, books of accounts etc. The company was agreeable to pay as per Govt. policy for sick companies as per GR dated 12.5.2004. The company's representative prayed for directions to the ST authorities to waive penal interest and penalty".
"10.6 For the purpose of the scheme, the date of amalgamation /merger has been 'assumed as January 1, 2006. Any permanent employee of DLL, if found technically competent and suitable for the work culture of IPL and willing to join the employment of the IPL, shall become its employee from the effective date of the merger without interruption in the services of such employees in any manner."
"11.2 Restructuring of existing liabilitis (Rs in Lakh) I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 11 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
PARTICULARS Before Restructuring as at 31. After Restructuring as at 01.
12.2005 01.2006
Working Capital 321.00 250.00 (OTS)
from Canara Bank
Working Capital from 108.00 70.00 (OTS)
Laxmi Viias
Bank
Total Secured 429.00 320.00 (OTS)
Loans
Unsecured creditors 710.00 71.00 (OTS)
Total Liabilities 1139.00 390.00 (OTS)
"12.Rehablitation proposal through Merger
The rehabilitation proposal submitted by DLL contemplates merger of DLL with IPL. DLL's performance over the years was not been satisfactory. DLL has been inclining operating losses and cash losses since 1997 mainly on account of gross under utilisation of installed manufacturing capacities. Since DLL is enviable on a stand-alone basis, it has been proposed to merge DLL with IPL. Any permanent employee of DLL, if found technically competent and suitable for the work culture of IPL and willing to join the employment of the IPL, shall become its employee' from the effective date of the merger without interruption in the services of such employees in any manner. As per the scheme of the merger, the DLL would be transferred to IPL (the Transferee company) and IPL would allot to the shareholders of DLL, preference shares in the ratio of one 5% redeemable preference share efface of value of Rs.10/-each of the Transferee company (redeemable within 60 months from the date of the sanction of the scheme) for every 20 equity shares of the face value of Rs. 10 each of the Transferor Company on such date as may be determined by the Board of Directors of the Transferee Company after transfer but not later than 60 months from the date of sanction of the rehabilitation scheme by BIFR. For I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 12 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
the purpose of the scheme, the date of amalgamation /merger has been assumed as January, 2006."
"13.Scheme of Rehablitation The Cut off Date is the date for consideration of relief and concessions as envisaged in the scheme and has been taken as 30.9.2006.
- Appointed date" or the date of amalgamation is 1.1.2006
- "Effective date" is the date on which the copy of sanctioned scheme by BIFR would be filed with Register of Companies. •
- "Period for implementation of scheme" is the period for achieving optimum capacity utilization.
"The Rehabilitation period" is the period during which the industrial unit will be revived and its accumulated losses would be wiped out."
In the light of the above facts and after perusal of the material on record it is clear that Dolphin Laboratories Ltd a sick Industrial company was merged with the asessee company as per the approved scheme as per the appointed date 01-01-2006.Therefore w.e.f. 01-01-2006 the Dolphin Laboratories was merged in the assessee company during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under consideration. It is also clear that assessee has also fulfilled all the conditions laid down under section 72A(2)(iii) r.w. Rule 9C for claiming the set off and carry forward of losses of amalgamating company. It is noticed that the cut off date 30-09- 2006 is pertained to the date up to which the parties can raise objection for the various reliefs and concessions provided under the BIFR scheme. As per the scheme of merger, DLL(Dolphin Laboratories Ltd) was transferred fully to the assessee company against which the shareholders of DLL were allotted preference I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 13 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
shares of the transferee company. It was an amalgamation as per the Income Tax Act, 1961 therefore the assessee is entitled to set off of brought forward losses and depreciation of amalgamating company as per the provisions of section 72A of the act. The purpose of the cut of date of 30-09-2006 was the time limit for submission of objections/suggestions in respect of relief and concession. It is further noticed that the assessee company has also fulfilled all the conditions mentioned in Rule 9C of the I.T. Rule. The assessee has also submitted complete information in Form No. 62. The assessing officer has not disputed the non-fulfillment of any conditions after verification of the Form No. 62 filed by the assesse. In the light of the above facts, we observe that the appointed date 01- 01-2006 is the date on which the assets and liabilities of the transferer company vest in transferee company. The assessee has made compliance to the conditions stipulated in Rule 9C of the I.T. Rule which is the requirement of section 72A of the act. After considering the above facts and circumstances, we are inclined with the decision of the ld. CIT(A) that the date of amalgamation is 01-01- 2006, therefore, the brought forward losses and the unabsorbed depreciation have been rightly set off in assessment year 2006-07. Accordingly this ground of appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
6. The other ground of appeal of the revenue is pertained to deleting addition of Rs. 22,95.000/- on account of disallowance of sale promotion expenses by the ld. CIT(A). On this issue, we have heard both the sides and perused the material on record. It is noticed I.T(SS).A No. 245/Ahd/2014 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 14 DCIT vs. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
the aforesaid addition on account of disallowance of sale promotion expenses was made in the assessment order on 28-01-2013 u/s. 143(3)/153A/263 by the assessing officer stating that disallowance on sale promotion expenses was made as mentioned in the order u/s. 154 of the act. The ld. CIT(A) has deleted the said addition on the ground that in the aforesaid order u/s. 154 the addition of Rs. 22,95,000/- was already made. Before us the revenue has not disproved the aforesaid material facts, therefore, we do not find any error in the decision of ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, this ground of appeal of revenue is also dismissed.
7. In the result, the ground nos. 1 to 3 of appeal of the revenue are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 09-01-2019
Sd/- Sd/-
(MADHUMITA ROY) (AMARJIT SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 09/01/2019
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदेश से,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,
अहमदाबाद