Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

      Sd/-                                                       sd/-
      (WA)                                                       (RPY)
      AM                                                         VP"

In view of the above, we proceed to adjudicate the additional ground of appeal raised by the assessee.

4. The assessee in the additional ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment on the reasoning that it was framed in the name of non-existent company.

5. The facts in brief are that the assessee is a Private Limited Company. The assessee company i.e. M/s Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd has taken over the other company namely M/s Unicorn Packers limited in a scheme of amalgamation w.e.f. 1st April 2014 approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 27-7-2015. Subsequently the assessee company got amalgamated with another company namely M/s UrminFlavoroma Private Limited w.e.f. 1st April 2015 in a scheme of amalgamation approved by the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court vide order dated 05-01-2016. Thereafter w.e.f. 1stMarch 2016 the name of the resulting/amalgamated company i.e. M/s UrminFlavoroma Private Limited was changed to M/s Unicorn Packaging Private Limited. Finally w.e.f. 21stMarch 2016 M/s Unicorn Packaging Private Limited converted into limited liability partnership. The assessee, however, in the year under consideration was subject to scrutiny assessment. The AO framed the assessment order dated 27th December 2018 under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act in the name of the erstwhile company namely M/s Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd which was a non-existent entity at that point of time.

6. The Ld. AR before us has challenged the validity of the assessment order framed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 27th December 2018 on the reasoning that it was framed on erstwhile company which was a non-existent entity at that point of time. The ld. AR has filed a paper book running from pages 1 to 59 and highlighted the chronology of events right from the date of filing the returns, scheme of amalgamation, intimations for change of name and conversion into LLP and the assessment framed under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act dated 27th December 2018.

9. Now coming to the legality of order framed by the AO under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act vide order dated 27thDecember 2018, in this regard we note that the AO on the first page of his order has mentioned the name of M/s. Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. which was erstwhile company. Thus it is clear that the assessment order was framed in the name of non-existent entity (M/s. Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd.) as the M/s. Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s UrminFlavoroma Pvt. Ltd.

18. In the case of Emerald Company Ltd., ITAT Kolkatta Bench has also dealt with similar situation after making reference to judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Dimension Apparels P. Ltd., 370 ITR 288 (Del) as well as decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. The ITAT has also made reference to the decision of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Intel Technology Ltd. P. Ltd., 380 ITR 272 (Kar.). The Tribunal has held that action under section 263 is a jurisdictional action against an assessee. In the case of a company, the ld. Commissioner was required to issue a show cause notice against a juridical person contemplated in section 2(31) of the Income Tax Act and if a juridical person ceases to exist then it would not be construed as a person within the meaning of section 2(31) against whom any action can be taken. The Commissioner would not assume proper jurisdiction and such type of defect would not be cured with help of section 292B of the Act, because it is not a procedural irregularity which could be cured. We also note that this Tribunal in the case of Snowhill Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT bearing ITA No. 1775/AHD/2019 vide order dated 21st January 2020 involving identical facts and circumstances has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. 18.1 In the light of the above discussion, we analyze the facts of the case on hand. It is undoubtedly the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on non-existing entity which is void ab-initio and nullity in the eye of law. The assessment framed against a non-existing entity goes to the root of the matter and it is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and there cannot be any assessment against a non-existing entity or a dead person. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case. Respectfully following the decisions of various courts as discussed above, we hold that the assessment made by the Assessing Officer in the name of the Urmin Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under section 143(3) read with section 144C of the Act vide order dated 27thDecember 2018 for the year under consideration is void ab-initio and bad in law. Hence the assessment order is a nullity in the eye of law and the same is quashed. The additional ground raised by the assessee is allowed.