Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company is producing and selling contents for Television channel . The assessee in its appeal before tribunal vide Ground of appeal No.1 has raised an jurisdictional legal issue which goes to the root of the matter that an assessment was framed by the AO on non existent entity namely „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ vide assessment order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act and hence the assessment framed by the AO is liable to be quashed. As we will see later in this order, if the assessee succeeds on this legal issue being jurisdictional issue going to the root of the matter and the assessment is held to be bad in law by us, then the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee will become academic and will not require our adjudication . The learned counsel for the assessee has argued vehemently before the Bench for quashing of the assessment order dated 01.02.2016 framed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act on the grounds that an assessment is framed on the non-existent entity namely „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ while the learned DR has mainly relied on the appellate order dated 24.03.2017 passed by learned CIT(A).

Thus, from para‟s 4.2 and 4.3 of the assessment order dated 01.02.2016, it is clearly evident that the AO was fully aware and having knowledge of the merger of „UTV Tele Talkies Ltd.‟ with „UTV Software Communication Ltd‟ . We have already seen that the assessee had brought to the notice of the Revenue about its merger with „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ vide several communications listed above. Despite being informed about the merger of the assessee company with „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ by the assesssee vide several communications as listed above and the AO despite being fully aware and having complete knowledge of the aforesaid merger of „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ with „UTV Software Communications Limited erred in not conducting an enquiry as is contemplated u/s. 170 of the Act read with Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC which requires a prima facie enquiry for substitution of successor-in-interest although it is a prima facie enquiry and not a very detailed enquiry as laid down by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Amit Kumar Shaw v. Farida Khatoon 2005 (11) SCC 403 to I.T.A. No.4281/Mum/2017 substitute successor in interest . We find that despite voluminous evidences on record filed by the assessee before the AO intimating about its merger, no prima facie enquiry was conducted by the AO to bring on record successor in interest to the assessee viz. „UTV Software Communications Limited „and instead the AO proceeded to frame an assessment order dated 01.02.2016 against a non existent entity viz. the assessee u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act , which in our considered view is fatal to the sustaining of an assessment framed by the AO on a non existent entity . Despite several communications filed by the assessee intimating about its merger, the AO chose not to bring on record name of the successor in interest pursuant to merger of the assessee namely „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ with its ultimate holding company „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ which is fatal for upholding assessment framed by the AO keeping in view factual matrix of the case before us. The landmark judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Yapi Kredi Bank (Deutchland) AG v. Ashok K. Chauhan & Ors. In FAO(OS) 511/2007, CM Appl. 14878/2008 & 3645/2012 dated 17.01.2013 is an authority which has considered entire law on the subject .

f) Acknowledgement of payment of Rs. 60,000/- to Official Liquidator Hon‟ble Bombay High Court , Mumbai towards costs of the Petition to the Official Liquidator( Rs. 10000/- cost was pertaining to the assessee as other companies also got merged with „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ vide common order passed by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court) vide letter filed on 05.05.2014.

3.11 The decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Limited(supra) is relevant wherein Hon‟ble Delhi High Court based on the finding of fact that Spice Corp Limited got amalgamated with MCorp Private Limited under scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court vide orders dated 11.02.2014 effective from 01.07.2003 and its name was struck from the rolls of Companies maintained by Registrar of Companies(para 7) , held that an assessment framed on a non existent entity is not sustainable in the eyes of law as it is a jurisdictional defect and is not a mere procedural defect and even Section 292B cannot come to rescue of the tax-payer. The SLP filed by Revenue against the said judgment of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court stood dismissed by Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Limited & Ors in batch of appeals in Civil Appeal Nos 285/2014 and others vide order dated 03.08.2011. Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT v. Nokia Solutions & Network India Private Limited(supra) in favour of the tax-payer by holding that no question of law arises. Similar view has been taken by Hon‟ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Intel Technology India Private Limited(supra) in favour of the tax-payer by following the decision of Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Limited v. CIT(ITA no. 475 & 476 of 2011, dated 03.08.2011). The Mumbai I.T.A. No.4281/Mum/2017 tribunal in the case of Instant Holdings Limited(supra) quashed assessment framed by the AO u/s 143(3) vide orders dated 19.12.2008 as the assessment was framed against a non-existent entity after recording a finding of fact in para 7 that Instant Trading and Investment Company Limited was merged with Instant Holding Limited under a scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court on 14.12.2007 w.e.f. 01.04.2007 and its name was struck off from the records of Registrar of Companies on 05.02.2008. The assessee has rightly relied upon the aforesaid judgments of Hon‟ble Courts/tribunal.

3.12 As we have extensively seen in the preceding para‟s of this order that voluminous evidences are filed by the assessee as to communication of its merger with its ultimate holding company „UTV Software Communication Limited‟ which was approved under a scheme of arrangement approved by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court u/s 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 , vide order dated 11.04.2014 w.e.f. 01.04.2013, during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessee on direction of the Bench has also filed copies of several compliances made by the assessee as were directed by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court vide para 18 to 20 of its order dated 11.04.2014 sanctioning scheme of amalgamation of the assessee with its ultimate holding company „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ w.e.f. 01.04.2013. The details of all these compliances as were done by the assessee to give effect to Hon‟ble Bombay High Court directions are detailed in para 3.10 of this order . We have carefully gone through these evidences which are now placed in file. All these compliances were completed before the end of May 2014. All these communications filed by the assessee along with evidences are speaking loudly that the assessee discharged its burden while failure to bring on record successor in interest during assessment proceedings was on the part of the Revenue. The AO in its assessment order vide para 4.2 and 4.3.1 has admitted to having knowledge of I.T.A. No.4281/Mum/2017 factum of merger of „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ with its ultimate holding company „UTV Software Communications Limited‟, which is reiterated by the AO in his remand report filed on the direction of learned CIT(A) during appellate proceedings. The assessment was framed by the AO on 01.02.2016 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act which was framed in the name of „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ which was an non existent company as it got merged with its ultimate holding company namely „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ . The AO has not conducted any prima facie enquiry as is contemplated u/s 170 of the 1961 Act read with Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC to bring on record successor in interest, despite several intimations given by the assessee to the AO as to the amalgamation of „UTV Tele Talkies Limited‟ with its ultimate holding company „UTV Software Communications Limited‟ during assessment proceedings. The non conducting of prima-facie enquiry by the AO to bring on record successor in interest as is contemplated u/s 170 read with Order 22 Rule 10 of CPC and framing of an assessment on a non existent entity is fatal keeping in view factual matrix of the case as discussed by us in preceding para‟s of this order . In the instant case based on factual matrix before us, we are afraid that an assessment order passed by the AO dated 01.02.2016 u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act is suffering from a legal infirmity as an assessment is framed by the AO against a non existent entity despite being informed vide several communications and a complete failure by the AO to bring on record successor in interest, thus in our considered view assessment order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law liable to be quashed as even provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act cannot save it from being quashed as this is a jurisdictional legal infirmity which goes to the root of the matter . Thus, we quash the assessment order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) of the 1961 Act.