Gujarat High Court
Roquette India Private Limited vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 10 July, 2023
Author: Vipul M. Pancholi
Bench: Vipul M. Pancholi
C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5719 of 2022
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
==========================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
==========================================================
ROQUETTE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
Versus
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 3(1)(1),
AHMEDABAD
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR B S SOPARKAR(6851) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.KARAN SANGHANI FOR MRS KALPANAK RAVAL(1046) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI
Date : 10/07/2023
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN M. DESAI) Page 1 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 [1] By way of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for the following reliefs:
"7A. quash and set aside the impugned notice dated 25.03.2021 issued by the Respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 at Annexure 'A';
B. pending the admission, hearing and final
disposal of this petition, to stay
implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure A to this petition and stay further proceedings for assessment and recovery for A.Y.2017-18;
C. any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice;
D. to provide for the cost of this petition."
[2] By consent of both the learned advocates, the present petition has taken up for final hearing.
[3] Heard the learned advocate Mr.B.S.Soparkar for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel Mr.Karan Sanghani for the respondent.
[4] Rule. Learned Standing Counsel Mr.Sanghani Page 2 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 for the respondent waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of respondent.
[5] Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the Scheme of arrangement in the nature of amalgamation of the erstwhile Roquette India Private Limited (PAN:AADCR6343R) with Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Limited was approved vide order dated 21.02.2014 by the High Court of Gujarat and vide order dated 09.05.2014 by the Bombay High Court was approved w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The said fact of amalgamation was intimated to the Respondent-authority vide communication dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter on 19.03.2019, the name of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Limited was changed to Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G).
5.1 It is submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the notice dated 25.03.2021 under Section 148 came to be issued in the name of the erstwhile company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN:
AADCR6343R). The petitioner vide communication dated 08.04.2021 informed the respondent authority that the Company with PAN: AADCR6343R has ceased to exist Page 3 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 and the Company with PAN: AAFCR2758G is in existence in which the erstwhile company has been merged. However, the respondent then issued a notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.11.2021. Petitioner gave reply on 15.11.2021 against the said notice.
5.2 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the respondent authority did not take into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner on 08.04.2021 and a reply dated 15.11.2021.
5.3 The respondent authority, however, again issued notice under Section 142(1) on 28.01.2022 by ignoring the earlier replies given by the petitioner. The petitioner again vide communication dated 04.02.2022 replied against the said notice, inter alia, highlighted the fact that the time deposits in question were purchased by the petitioner and not by the erstwhile company and the PAN of the erstwhile company was inadvertently reported.
5.4 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the petitioner that vide communication dated 04.02.2022, the respondent authority was brought to the Page 4 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 notice that the said notice is bad in law and void ab-
initio and also submitted clarifications. It is also submitted by learned advocate for the petitioner that in those clarifications, the petitioner categorically mentioned that the new amalgamated company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G) invested in time deposits from BNP Paribas and in the said time deposits, inadvertently, BNP Paribas reported in their SFT Return as having been invested in by the old amalgamating company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AADCR6343R). It was further clarified that on approaching BNP Paribas, BNP Paribas subsequently revised their SFT Return duly rectifying the said error.
It was further clarified that the error has been rectified by the BNP Paribas.
5.5 It is the contention of the learned advocate for the petitioner that the notice issued by the revenue was in the name of old company, which is not permissible.
5.6 It is contended by the learned advocate for the petitioner that the impugned notice is without jurisdiction as it has been issued in the name of the company which is not existing. The fact of merger of two companies, Page 5 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 were duly intimated to the Revenue immediately after the merger took place. However, the notices have been issued in the name of old company and hence, has prayed for quashing and setting aside the impugned notice dated 25.03.2021 issued by the respondent authority under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18.
5.7 Learned advocate for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Neo Structo Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax reported in (2022) 144 taxmann.com 41 (Gujarat) and in the case of Adani Estate Management Private Limited (Earlier Known as Shantigram estate Management Limited) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad passed in Special Civil Application No.4625 of 2022 on 20.06.2023, wherein the similar type of issue has been decided.
[6] Per contra, learned advocate for the respondent authority has mainly relied on the contentions and averments made in the Affidavit-in-reply and harped upon that the company had not given any application for cancellation or deactivation of PAN of amalgamated Page 6 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 company and therefore, based on the data available on ITBA System, the impugned notice came to be issued.
6.1 It is further submitted by the learned advocate for the respondent that the assessee company had not submitted any documentary evidence in support of its claim. And on verification of data in Non-filers Monitoring System (NMS) and Individual Transaction Statement, it was found that the assessee had carried out financial transactions during the Financial Assessment Year 2017-18 and hence, the impugned notices are as per the provisions of law and has prayed for dismissal of the present petition.
[7] On perusal of the documents placed on record and after considering the submissions of both the sides, it is clear that, after the amalgamation of the erstwhile Rouquette India Private Ltd. (PAN: AADCR6343R) with Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Ltd., the petitioner informed the revenue vide communication dated 01.07.2014. Thereafter, the name of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Ltd. was changed to Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G). However, the revenue issued notice under Section 148 on 25.03.2021 Page 7 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 without considering the fact that the name of Roquette Riddhi Siddhi Private Limited was changed to Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G). Petitioner gave reply to the said notice vide communication dated 08.04.2021.
The respondent, however, issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 10.11.2021 and the petitioner replied vide communication dated 15.11.2021. Against, another notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 21.01.2022, the petitioner replied to the same vide communication dated 04.02.2022. The Respondent Authority without considering the replies, issued notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2022 and notice under Section 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 12.03.2022, against which, petitioner gave replies on 04.02.2022 and 16.03.2022 respectively.
[8] The notice dated 25.03.2021 was issued in the name of Company, which is no longer in existence. The clarification that new amalgamated Company Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AAFCR2758G) had invested in time deposits from BNP Paribas during the relevant Assessment Year 2017-18. It was also pointed out that Page 8 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 the said error on the part of BNP Paribas in mentioning that the investment has been done by the old amalgamating company i.e. Roquette India Private Limited (PAN: AADCR6343R). The said error was rectified by BNP Paribas and BNP Paribas has subsequently revised their SFT return. The petitioner has placed on record its Annual Tax Statement filed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017- 18, wherein PAN is shown as AAFCR2758G.
[9] The issue involved in the present petition is no more res integra in view of the reported decision in the case of Neo Structo Construction (supra). The similar question arose before this Court and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed in paras 7 & 8 as under:-
"7. Learned advocate Mr. Shah relied upon the judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (107 Taxmann. Com.
375) in which the Supreme Court has held as under:
"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 Page 9 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 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. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co- ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment."
8. He further placed reliance on the decision of this Court in case of Gayatri Microns Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2020] 114 Taxmann.com 318 in which this Court has held as under:
"9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has Page 10 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
10. Similarly, this court, in the judgment in the case of Dharamnath Shares and Services (P) Ltd. (supra) while referring to its earlier decision in the case of Khurana Engineering Limited (supra) held that once the assessee company gets amalgamated with the transferee company, its independent existence does not survive and therefore it would no longer be amenable to the assessment proceedings. Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that upon its amalgamation the transferor company ceases to exist and becomes extinct, and it would no longer be amenable to the assessment proceedings considering the fact that the extinct entity would not be covered within the ambit of the provisions of the Act.
Page 11 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023
11. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid concluded proposition of law; which applies on all fours to the facts of the present case, the notice dated 25th March, 2019 issued by the respondent under the provisions of section 148 of the Act for the assessment year 2012-13, being without jurisdiction, is not sustainable."
[10] In the case of Adani Wilmar Ltd. (supra), this Court has also referred the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd., wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed in paras 5 & 6 as under:-
"5. It is urged before this Court that this group of other such matters in relation to the another company - Kunvarji Fincorp Pvt. Ltd. for other assessment years have been decided in Special Civil Application No.935 of 2022 and allied matters on 06.02.2023 and on the reasoning mutatis mutandis applied to case of the present matter, where the Court has referred order passed in Special Civil Application No.903 of 2022 dated 16.01.2023 and reproduced relevant portion as under:-
"10. Noticing thus the submission of both the sides and the materials on record, it is not requiring much of debate that in the instant case, this Court on 05.08.2016 after following the requisite procedure which also includes giving of notice to the Income-Page 12 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023
C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 tax Department, has chosen to decide the plea of amalgamation and approved the Scheme of Amalgamation in the interest of shareholders, creditors and has also taken note of the public interest. This decision had been intimated by the present petitioner and reply to the notice under Section142(1) of the Incometax Act for the A.Y.2016- 17, not only, it had specified that it has required the two companies i.e.M/s. Kaizen Stocktrade Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AADCK0048A] and Kaizen Finstock Pvt. Ltd. [PAN: AAECK6956E] and this communication addressed to Circle 2(1)(2) provides for order of the Court dated 31 st August, 2016.
11. In absence of any particular format for intimating the authority concerned, this intimation on the part of the petitioner is sufficient intimation to the department. We need to make also a note of the fact that the notice, which is impugned in the present petition is issued by the Officer Circle 2(1) (1).
12. The Apex court in the case of Principal CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. (Supra) had noted that the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved Scheme of Amalgamation. The Court has held that the legal principle provides that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. This Court in the case of Gayatri Microns Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax was considering the the case of issuance of notice under Section-148 to one of the three transferee companies for reopening the assessment. The Court considered whether the Page 13 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 transferor company had ceased to exist as a result of the approved Scheme of Amalgamation. Answering that in the affirmation has held that in such case, the notice issued under Section-148 in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction.
8. Concededly, in the present case the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued to Gayatri Integrated Services Private Limited which, as aforesaid, had long back got amalgamated with the petitioner vide order dated 18th June, 2015 passed by this court and thus, it had ceased to have its own existence so as to render it amenable for the reassessment proceedings under the provisions of section 147 of the Act. Moreover, the respondent and the department were duly informed by the petitioner about the amalgamation and despite the said factum having been brought to the notice of the respondent, statutory notice under section 148 came to be issued to Gayatri Integrated Services Private Limited for reopening the assessment on the ground that the respondent has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2012-13 has escaped the assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.
9. The controversy in the present petition, is no longer res integra. The Apex Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if Page 14 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated.
The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.
10. Similarly, this court, in the judgment in the case of Dharamnath Shares and Services (P) Ltd. (supra) while referring to its earlier decision in the case of Khurana Engineering Limited (supra) held that once the assessee company gets amalgamated with the transferee company, its independent existence does not survive and therefore it would no longer be amenable to the assessment proceedings. Thus, it is well settled proposition of law that upon its amalgamation the transferor company ceases to exist and becomes extinct, and it would no longer be amenable to the assessment proceedings considering the fact that the extinct entity would not be covered within the ambit of the provisions of the Act.
13. The Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax Vs. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. was considering the case for the A.Y.2006- 07, where there was no intimation regarding Page 15 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 amalgamation of the company. The return of income was filed by the assessee on 30.06.2006 in the name of MRPL and MRPL amalgamated with MIPL on 11.05.2007, w.e.f. 01.04.2006. The proceedings against MRPL stated in 27.08.2008 - when search and seizure was first conducted on assessee group of companies. Notices under Section 153A and Section 143(2) were issued in the name of MRPL and the representative from MRPL corresponded with the revenue in the name of MRPL. The assessee filed its return of income in the name of MRPL in May, 2010 and in the 'Business Reorganization' column of the form mentioned 'not applicable' in amalgamation section. It had contended that the intimation was sent to the revenue on 22.07.2010. The same was for the A.Y.2007-08 and not for the A.Y.2006- 07. The separate proceedings under Section 153A were initiated against MIPL for A.Y.2007-8 to 2008-09 and the proceedings against MRPL for those two assessment years were quashed by the Commissioner as the amalgamation was disclosed.
Since the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations have taken place and statements were recorded by the revenue of the Directors and Managing Director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which also suppressed the factum of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was filed by MRPL - the company which has ceased to be in existence, and yet, the appeals were filed on behalf of it before the Commissioner and a cross appeal was filed before the Tribunal. An Page 16 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 affidavit before the court was also on behalf of the Director of MRPL and the assessment order had attributed the specific amounts surrendered by MRPL and that too, after considering the special auditor's report, bringing specific amounts to tax in the search assessment order.
14. All these according to the Court indicated that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the liability and it opined that the conduct of the assessee commencing from the date the search took place, and before all forums, reflected that it consistently held itself out as the assessee. It was held that the corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per-se invalidate the assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, but, would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case. In light of this, the order of the High Court was not sustained and as the appeal of the revenue against the order of the Commissioner was not heard on merits, the Court had restored the matter on the file of Tribunal. While so holding the Court had taken note of decision of Principal CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki Ltd. to hold thus:-
"31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2012-13 was issued to amalgamating company on 26.09.2013. This court in facts and circumstances observed the following:Page 17 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023
C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 "35. In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non- existent company.
The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.
*** **** **** ****
39. 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 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. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Entertainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Entertainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011- 2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Entertainment.
Page 18 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023
40. We find no reason 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 which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result 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."
32. The court, undoubtedly noticed Saraswati Syndicate Further, the judgment in Spice (supra) and other line of decisions, culminating in this court's order, approving those judgments, was also noticed. Yet, the legislative change, by way of introduction of Section 2(1A), defining "amalgamation" was not taken into account. Further, the tax treatment in the various provisions of the Act were not brought to the notice of this court, in the previous decisions.
33. There is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and 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 Page 19 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023 C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 void and illegal. The facts of present case, however, can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki on the following bases.
15. It is to be noticed that the Court specifically had held that the MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and ceased to exist thereafter. The contention of the respondent that the notice issued in the name of amalgamating company being void and illegal relying on the Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) was not sustained only on the robot facts which had been presented before this Court holding that can be distinguished from the facts existed in those matters.
16. According to this Court, the facts applicable to the present case are those which existed in case of Maruti Suzuki and not as were before the Apex Court in case of Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. (Supra). Here of-course, the intimation was given in reply to the notice under Section142 in the month of March, 2018 by specifically intimating to the concerned officer of the factum of amalgamation by the petitioner and of its having acquired both the companies viz.Kaizen Stocktrade Pvt. Ltd. and Kaizen Finstock Pvt. Ltd. Again, it is the very officer who after three years of such amalgamation has issued notice which is impugned in the name of that company, which no longer existed on 30.03.2021 for the A.Y. 2016-17 and therefore, the grievance on the part of the petitioner requires to be sustained and the action of the respondent authority warrants interference.
Page 20 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023
17. We are conscious of the fact that the Income-tax Department had already been issued the notice by this Court at the time of considering the request for approving the scheme of amalgamation, however, that would in no manner absolve any party of its obligation to intimate the final order of amalgamation, as is otherwise expected under the law. The statute since has not provided any format nor has any specified format otherwise prescribed this intimation in response to the notice under Section142 of the Income Tax Act should be construed as a sufficient compliance and hence, all the petitions deserve to be allowed, quashing and setting aside the showcause notices with consequential reliefs.
This of-course in no manner preclude the respondent to initiate the action against the present petitioner in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of in above terms."
6. The Court has already decided issue involved in this petition, in similar facts in Special Civil Application No.935 of 2022 and allied matters. Thus, the petition here also is allowed. The actions of the respondent - authority regarding issuance of notice under Section-148 deserves to be interfered with. The show-cause notices issued by the respondents are quashed and set aside with consequential reliefs. This could not in any manner preclude the respondents to initiate the action against the present petitioners in accordance with law."
Page 21 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023C/SCA/5719/2022 JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2023 [11] Thus, the legal principle is clear that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Hence, we find no reason to take different view. Keeping in view the above observations made in the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, this petition deserves to be allowed.
[12] In the result, this petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 25.03.2021 issued by the respondent under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment Year 2017-18, is hereby quashed and set aside. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
(VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J) (D. M. DESAI,J) MANOJ Page 22 of 22 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 13 20:36:19 IST 2023