Assessment in the name of a non-existent amalgamating company is void; participation by the successor does not cure the jurisdictional defect.

Assessment proceedings initiated or continued in the name of a company that has ceased to exist after amalgamation are void for want of jurisdiction. The jurisdictional notice and any consequential assessment must be issued in the name of the surviving amalgamated entity; a draft or final order in the name of the non-existent predecessor is fundamentally defective. Participation by the amalgamated company does not cure the defect or create estoppel against the law. The Delhi HC therefore treated the assessment order passed in the name of the ceased entity as invalid, and the challenge by the Revenue failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment order or draft assessment order passed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist upon amalgamation is valid.

Analysis: The Revenue's challenge arose from the Assessing Officer having proceeded against the predecessor company despite notice of amalgamation. The legal position applied was that once the amalgamating company ceases to exist, assessment proceedings in its name are fundamentally defective. Participation in the proceedings does not cure the defect or operate as an estoppel against law. The ruling relied on the settled principle that the jurisdictional notice and consequential assessment must be issued in the name of the surviving amalgamated entity.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed in the name of the ceased entity was invalid, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Assessment proceedings initiated or continued in the name of a non-existent amalgamating company are void, and such a jurisdictional defect is not cured by participation of the amalgamated entity.

---