Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(b) Even otherwise, the mistake is curable u/s 292B

(c) Assessment and subsequently appeal was represented by Amalgamated company and no prejudice is caused to the parties;

(d) In Spice, the final order only referred to the name of nonexistent entity without any reference to the amalgamated company;

(e) Even as per decision in Spice, if the order is passed on the resulting company the same shall not be void - hence in present case since both the names were mentioned it cannot be regarded as a jurisdictional defect;

b) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment order passed by relying on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs. CIT [1990] 186 ITR 278 (SC);

c) The jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, pursuant to which the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment was issued in the name of SPIL, a nonexistent entity and was invalid. Hence the initiation of assessment proceedings against a non-existent entity was void ab initio.

e) The order passed by the TPO in the name of SPIL, a nonexistent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law;

f) SPIL ceased to be an "eligible assessee", in terms of section 144C(15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order/reference to DRPetc.;

g) The final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 is beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act.

h) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid [refer: Spice Entertainment vs. CIT, CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi); affirmed by Hon'ble Apex Court vide Civil Appeal No. 3125 of 2015, CIT v. Micron Steels (P.) Ltd. 372 ITR 386 (Delhi), CIT v. Micra India (P) Ltd. 231 Taxman 809 (Delhi)].

b) In the relied upon cases, the assessee had duly informed the tax authorities about the fact of the merger of companies and yet the assessment order was passed in the name of the nonexistent entity. However, in the present case, the assessee failed to inform the assessing officer about the amalgamation for assessment year 2006-07 (year in dispute), though disclosure was made for subsequent years (AYs 2007-08 and 2008-09). The return of income filed on 28.05.2010 (post amalgamation) pursuant to notice under section 153A was filed in the name of MRPL and the fact of business reorganization was mentioned as 'not applicable"