Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

I.T.A. No. 2561 /Mum/2 021& o thers M/s Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

The relevant facts of the case are as under:-

i. The original return of MRPL was filed under Section 139(1) on 30.06.2006.

ii. The order of amalgamation was dated 11.05.2007 - but made effective from 01.04.2006. It contained a condition

- Clause 220-whereby MRPL's liabilities devolved on MIPL. iii. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised return was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation order came into operation. iv. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including the MRPL and other companies.

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 name of MRPL. MRPL amalgamated with MIPL on 11.05.2007, w.e.f. 01.04.2006. In the present case, the proceedings against MRPL started on 27.08.2008-when search and seizure was first conducted on the Mahagun group of companies. Notices under Section 153A and Section 143(2) were issued in the name MRPL and the representative from MRPL corresponded with the department in the name of MRPL. On 28.05.2010, the assessee filed its ROI in the name of MRPL, and in the 'Business Reorganization' column of the form mentioned 'not applicable' in amalgamation section. Though the respondent contends I.T.A. No. 2561 /Mum/2 021& o thers M/s Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.

Revenue, additional ground was urged that the assessment order was nullity because MRPL was not in existence. The assessment order was issued in the name of MRPL (representative of MIPL) and even in the first appeal before the Id. CIT (A) and cross objection before the ITAT, it was mentioned as "MRPL represented by MIPL".

At no point of time, even at the time of search and subsequently on receipt of the notice, it was stated that MRPL was not in existence and its business of the erstwhile MRPL was taken over by MIPL.

h) Even when MRPL ceased to be in existence, in law, yet appeals were filed on its behalf before the CIT, and a cross appeal was filed before ITAT. Even the affidavit before Apex Court was on behalf of the director of MRPL .

i) The assessment order was no doubt expressed to be of MRPL (as the assessee) - but represented by the transferee, MIPL. All these clearly indicate that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability.

j) Merely because instead of passing a common order for MIPL as the assessee, a separate order in respect of MRPL is passed, cannot nullify the assessment order.