Assessment against a non-existent amalgamated company is a substantive illegality and cannot be sustained.

An assessment framed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation was held unsustainable where the Assessing Officer had already been informed of the merger. The defect was treated as substantive, not a mere procedural irregularity, because proceedings must be taken against the legally existing entity. The Tribunal's view aligned with the settled position that an assessment against a non-existent company lacks legal foundation. The appeals therefore did not warrant interference, and no substantial question of law arose.

---

---

Issues: Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a company that had ceased to exist after amalgamation, despite intimation of the amalgamation to the Assessing Officer, was sustainable in law.

Analysis: The transferor company had ceased to exist upon amalgamation with the respondent and this fact had been communicated to the Assessing Officer before the assessment order was passed. An assessment framed against a non-existent entity suffers from a fundamental legal defect. The assessment could not be saved as a mere procedural irregularity, and the conclusion reached by the Tribunal was consistent with the settled position that proceedings must be taken against the legally existing entity.

Conclusion: The assessment order was unsustainable and the issue is decided against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: No substantial question of law arose, and the appeals did not merit interference.

Ratio Decidendi: An assessment made against a company that has ceased to exist after amalgamation, once the revenue is informed of the amalgamation, is a substantive illegality and cannot be upheld.

---