Assessment Notices to Non-Existent Entities Post-Amalgamation Deemed Void, Upholding Successor Company's Rights.

The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeals, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision that quashed the Assessing Officer's order due to the issuance of assessment notices in the name of a non-existent entity post-amalgamation. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., it was determined that such orders are void ab initio. The decision favored the assessee, affirming that assessments must be conducted in the name of the successor company following amalgamation. The judgment was pronounced on 04/09/2019, resolving the dispute in the assessee's favor.

---

---

Issues:
- Quashing of the order of the Assessing Officer due to a change of company name
- Deletion of addition of bogus share capital and unaccounted commission
- Validity of assessment in the name of a non-existent entity post-amalgamation

Analysis:
1. The appeals were filed by the Revenue against the orders of the ld. CIT(A)-28, New Delhi, challenging the quashing of the Assessing Officer's order and deletion of additions made on account of bogus share capital and unaccounted commission. The issues were heard together due to their commonality.

2. The grounds raised in ITA No. 2666/Del/2017 included errors by the CIT(A) in quashing the AO's order, ignoring communication regarding amalgamation, and deleting additions without proper appreciation of facts. The CIT(A) was criticized for not considering the circumstances of the case adequately.

3. The brief facts of the case included the date of search & seizure operation, issue of notice, filing of return, the High Court order on amalgamation, intimation to AO, and completion of assessment. The amalgamation of two companies was a crucial aspect of the case.

4. The key argument revolved around the company's amalgamation and its impact on assessment proceedings. The appellant contended that the company ceased to exist post-amalgamation, necessitating assessment in the name of the successor company. Legal precedents, including judgments in similar cases, were cited to support this argument.

5. The CIT(A) based the decision on the exposition by the jurisdictional High Court in Spice Infotainment Ltd and other relevant cases. It was emphasized that framing an order in the name of a non-existent entity is a jurisdictional defect, not a procedural one, rendering any such order void ab initio.

6. Referring to the Supreme Court's decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., the Tribunal concluded that assessment notices issued in the name of non-existing entities post-amalgamation are not valid. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the CIT(A)'s order based on the Apex Court's ruling.

7. Ultimately, the appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, upholding the decision of the CIT(A) in favor of the assessee. The judgment was pronounced in the open court on 04/09/2019, providing a final resolution to the legal dispute.

---