Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. As is discernible from the records the objects of the assessee company which was incorporated as Satyam Computer Services Pvt. Ltd. at Hyderabad on 24.06.1987, were to undertake design and development of system and application software either for its own use or for export. On 15.07.1991 the company changed its name to M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. AS on 07.01.2009 Shri B. Ramalinga Raju, the then chairman of Satyam Computers Services Ltd. addressed a confessional letter to the board of directors and brought certain serious infirmities to their notice viz. (i). inflated (non-existent) cash and bank balance of Rs. 5,040 Crores (as against Page |7 5,361 Crores reflected in the books of account; (ii). accrued interest of Rs. 376 Crores which was non-existent; (iii). understatement of liabilities of Rs. 1,230 Crores on account of funds arranged by him; and (iv). overstated debtors of Rs. 490 Crores (as against Rs. 2,651 Crores reflected in the books of accounts). In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the Government of India appointed a board to help the company to steer through the crisis. In April, 2009, Venturbay Consultant Pvt. Ltd. i.e a 100% subsidiary of Tech Mahindra merged as a successful bidder in acquisition of Satyam Computers Services Ltd. Subsequently, the assessee viz. Satyam Computers Services Ltd. w.e.f 01.04.2011 merged with M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. After the said merger, all the proceedings against Satyam Computer Services Ltd. were taken over by Tech Mahindra Ltd.

6. Both the assessee and the revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the mater by way of cross-appeals before us. However, as the assessee by raising an additional ground of appeal has assailed the validity of the assessment order passed by the A.O P a g e | 12 u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153 r.w.s 144C(4), dated 05.01.2015, therefore, we shall first deal with the same. The ld. Authorized Representative (for short „A.R‟) for the assessee at the very outset of the hearing of the appeal submitted that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. had merged with M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. w.e.f 01.04.2011. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that though the fact that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. had merged with the assessee company was in the notice of the A.O, however, he had framed the assessment under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153 r.w.s 144C(4), dated 05.01.2015 in the name of "M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd." Accordingly, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating company viz. M/s Satyam Computers services Ltd. which had ceased to exist in the eyes of law was invalid and untenable in law. It was averred by the ld. A.R that the A.O despite being well informed of the fact that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. which had w.e.f 01.04.2011 merged with the assessee company, had thus ceased to exist, however, had chosen to frame the assessment in the hands of the said non-existent entity. In order to drive home his aforesaid claim the ld. A.R drew our attention to Page 2 - Para 4 of the assessment order, wherein the A.O had categorically observed that Satyam Computers Services Limited had w.e.f 01.04.2011 merged with M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. Further, the Ld. A.R in order to buttress his contention that an assessment on a non-existent entity was invalid in the eyes of law, therein relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) (copy placed on record). It was thus submitted by the ld. A.R, that the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153 r.w.s 144C(4), dated 05.01.2015 in the hands of a non-existent entity was non-est in the eyes of law, and thus was liable to be quashed on the said ground itself. The ld. A.R in order to substantiate his claim that an assessment framed in the hands of a non-existent company is non- est in law relied on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. M/s Spice Enfotainment Ltd. (Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014, dated 02.11.2017). On the basis of his aforesaid contention, it was the claim of the ld. A.R that as the assessment order was in the name of the amalgamating company viz. M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd, which was non-existent on the date when the said order was passed, therefore, the same was null and void ab initio. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R, that in the backdrop of identical facts the order passed by the Pr.CIT u/s 263 of the Act, dated 24.10.2017 in the assesses own case for the immediately succeeding year i.e P a g e | 13 A.Y 2011-12 in Tech Mahindra Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai, ITA No. 7249/Mum/2017 had been quashed by the Tribunal, vide its order dated 11/10/2019. It was submitted by the ld. A.R, that the Tribunal in its aforesaid order, had concluded, that as the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 25.05.2015 was in the name of M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd., i.e an entity that was non-existent on the date on which the assessment order was passed, therefore, the same was non-est in the eyes of law. Also, the Tribunal taking cognizance of the fact that the order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, dated 24.10.2017, was in the name of the non-existent entity viz. M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd.,had quashed the same. The ld. A.R took us through the observations recorded by the Tribunal in the aforesaid order passed in the assessee‟s own case for A.Y 2011-12, ITA No. 7249/Mum/2017. In the backdrop of his aforesaid contentions, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 153 r.w.s 144C(4), dated 05.01.2015 in the hands of a non-existent entity being non-est in the eyes of law, was thus liable to be quashed.

7. Per contra, the ld. D.R relied on the orders of the lower authorities. It was once again reiterated by the ld. D.R, that now when the assessee had participated in the assessment proceedings, therefore, it was not permissible on its part to now assail the validity of the assessment order.

8. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record, as well as the judicial pronouncements relied upon by them. In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy involved in the present appeal, the narration of the facts would be instructive. M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. was initially incorporated as Satyam Computers Pvt. Ltd. at Hyderabad on 24.06.1987. Objects of the company were to undertake design and development system and application software either for its own use or for export. On 15.07.1991 the company changed its name to M/s Satyam Computers Services ltd. Subsequently, on 26.08.1991, the company went public and 81.22% shareholding was offered to the public. M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. was subsequently merged with the assessee company i.e M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. i.e w.e.f 01.04.2011. Subsequent to the aforesaid merger, the existing proceedings against Satyam Computers Services Ltd. were taken over by the P a g e | 14 assessee company. On a perusal of the assessment order, we find that the A.O at Page 2 - Para 4 ,had observed, that Satyam Computers Services Ltd. had w.e.f 01.04.2011 merged with M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. The observations of the A.O to the said effect are reproduced as under:

P a g e | 24 w.e.f 01.04.2011. Subsequent to the aforesaid merger, the existing proceedings against Satyam Computers Services Ltd. were taken over by the assessee company.

8. Admittedly, as is discernible from the assessment order the fact that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. had been merged with M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. 01.04.2011 was clearly to the knowledge of the assessing officer. In fact, a specific mention of the fact that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. had merged with the assessee company on 01.04.2011 and all the existing proceedings against it were taken over by the assessee company finds a specific mention in the assessment order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 25.05.2015. However, we find that despite being conversant of the fact that M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. having been merged with the assessee company i.e M/s Tech Mahindra Ltd. w.e.f 01.04.2011, was thus no more existing, the A.O had framed the assessment in the name of the said non- existent entity viz. M/s Satyam Computers Services ltd., vide his order passed under Sec. 143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 25.05.2015. As a matter of fact, we find that even the PAN Number stated in the assessment order i.e "AACCS 8639Q" is of the aforesaid amalgamating company i.e M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. As is discernible from the records, the Pr. CIT-2, Mumbai, also had thereafter passed the order under Sec. 263 of the Act, dated 24.10.2017 in the name of the non-existent entity viz. "M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. (now merged with Tech Mahindra Ltd.)". At this stage, it would be relevant to point out that even in the aforesaid order passed by the Pr. CIT under Sec. 263 of the Act, the PAN Number of M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd. i.e AACCS8639Q was mentioned. In sum and substance, a perusal of the orders of the lower authorities reveals beyond any scope of doubt that the respective orders under Sec.143(3) r.w.s 144C(3), dated 25.05.2015 and under Sec. 263 of the Act, dated 24.10.2017, were passed in the name of a non-existent entity viz. M/s Satyam Computers Services Ltd.