Assessment in the name of a non-existent amalgamating entity is void ab initio when the department knew of the merger.

An assessment initiated and completed in the name of an amalgamating entity that had already ceased to exist is void ab initio where the amalgamation had taken effect before the assessment and the department had been informed of it. The tribunal held that issuing the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order against a non-existent entity created a jurisdictional defect that was not cured by the successor bank's participation. The contrary Revenue authority was distinguished on facts, and the assessment was quashed in favour of the assessee, leaving the remaining grounds academic.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment framed in the name of an entity that had ceased to exist pursuant to amalgamation was valid in law.

Analysis: The merger of the erstwhile entity with the successor bank had taken effect before completion of assessment. The fact of amalgamation had been intimated to the Assessing Officer, yet the notice under section 143(2) and the assessment order were issued in the name of the amalgamating entity. An assessment cannot be initiated or completed against a person that has ceased to exist, and the jurisdictional defect is not cured by the subsequent participation of the successor where the factual matrix shows that the department was aware of the amalgamation. The contrary authority relied upon by the Revenue was distinguished on facts.

Conclusion: The assessment was void ab initio and was rightly quashed; the issue was decided in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The assessment proceedings against the non-existent amalgamating entity could not survive, and the substantive dispute stood resolved in favour of the assessee while the remaining grounds became academic.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment initiated and completed in the name of an entity that has ceased to exist on account of amalgamation is void ab initio where the revenue was informed of the amalgamation before the jurisdictional action was taken.

---