Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. The Ld. AR has restricted his arguments to the extent of additional grounds of appeal where the assessment order was passed on the non existing entity. On the factual aspects, the assessee company was amalgamated with the BASF India Limited as per the scheme of Amalgamation under section 391 to 394 of the companies Act 1956 approved by the Honble High Court Of Bombay w.e.f 01-02-2010. Due to amalgamation, the identity of the assesee company ceased to exist and the copy of order of amalgamation sanctioned by the Honble High Court of Bombay was filed with the Addl.CIT Range 6(2) Mumbai by letter dated 5-04-2010. The Assessing officer has issued the notice u/sec 143(2) and U/sec 142(1) of the Act. Finally the A.O. has passed draft Assessment with transfer pricing adjustments and disallowances vide order u/sec143(3) Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai r.w.s 144C(1) of the Act dated 27-01-2014. Further on filling of objections in Form no 35A against the Draft Asst Order. The DRP has passed the order u/sec144C(5) of the Act with the directions dated 30/12/2014.Subsequently the learned assessing officer, has passed final assessment order u/sec143(3) r.w.s 144C(13) of the Act on 28-11-2014 in the name of M/s Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd(Now merged with BASF India Ltd) being nonexistent entity. Thus, it is clear that as on the date of passing of assessment order, i.e. on 28/11/2014, "Diamond Dye-Chem Ltd ''was not in existence as it was merged with BASF India Ltd and the assessment order was passed on nonexistent company/entity and is invalid.

6. We find The Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the case of Pr.CIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 ( S C ), has held that assessment order passed on a nonexistent entity is without jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. The facts of the case, before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court clearly shows that the notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act is in the name of amalgamating company and not the name of amalgamated company. Even the participation by the assessee in the assessment proceedings would also not Diamomnd Dye Chem Ltd, Mumbai make any difference because the facts remains that the assessment order has been passed by the assessing officer in the name of a nonexistent company. 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 estoppels against law.