Court emphasizes correct entity assessment post-amalgamation, nullifies assessment against non-existent company.

The court dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of correctly identifying the entity to be assessed post-amalgamation. The court held that the notice should have been sent to the transferee company, as the assessment against the non-existent transferor company was a nullity. The court rejected the Revenue's argument based on Section 292B of the Act, highlighting the tax authorities' obligation to substitute the successor company. The decision underscored the necessity of following legal procedures to ensure the validity of assessments in similar cases.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity of notice issued under Section 153C/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a company that had amalgamated with another company.
2. Applicability of Section 292B of the Act in curing procedural defects in jurisdictional matters.

Issue 1: Validity of Notice under Section 153C/143(3):
The case involved a dispute regarding the validity of a notice issued under Section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to a company, M/s Micra India Pvt. Ltd., which had amalgamated with another company, M/s Dynamic Buildmart (P) Ltd. The Revenue contended that the notice was valid as the assessee participated in the proceedings after receiving the notice. However, the ITAT held that the notice should have been sent to the transferee company post-amalgamation. The ITAT's decision was based on the fact that the assessment completed against the non-existent transferor company was a nullity. The court referred to various legal precedents to support the contention that post-amalgamation, the transferor company ceases to exist, and the assessment should be made on the successor company.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 292B of the Act:
The Revenue argued that Section 292B of the Act neutralizes procedural defects in jurisdictional matters and that the assessee's failure to object initially should preclude challenging the assessment's validity later. However, the court rejected this argument by referring to a previous ruling that emphasized the obligation of tax authorities to substitute the successor company in place of the amalgamated company. The court noted that despite the participation during assessment, the assessing officer failed to rectify the error of assessing a non-existent company, leading to a justified decision by the ITAT to quash the assessment.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the appeals, stating that no substantial question of law or liability was involved. The judgment highlighted the importance of correctly identifying the entity to be assessed post-amalgamation and the significance of following legal procedures to ensure the validity of assessments in such cases.

---