Amalgamation and assessment validity fail when proceedings continue against a company that no longer exists after merger.

Assessment and transfer pricing proceedings initiated in the name of a company that had already amalgamated were invalid because the company had ceased to exist on the appointed date. Repeated notice of the merger to the department meant the jurisdictional defect was not cured by the successor's participation, and notices, draft order, DRP directions, and final assessment order all issued in the wrong name failed for want of a valid assessee. The later Supreme Court distinction was held inapplicable on these facts, as there was no suppression of the amalgamation. The proceedings and assessment order were quashed.

---

---

Issues: Whether assessment proceedings, transfer pricing proceedings, DRP directions, and the final assessment order passed in the name of a company that had already amalgamated and ceased to exist were valid.

Analysis: The amalgamation had been approved with effect from the appointed date, and the department was repeatedly informed of the merger before and during the assessment proceedings. Despite this, notices, transfer pricing proceedings, the draft assessment order, DRP directions, and the final assessment order continued to be issued in the name of the amalgamating company. The order relied on the principle that once a company ceases to exist on amalgamation, proceedings must be continued in the name of the amalgamated entity; participation by the successor does not cure a foundational jurisdictional defect. The distinction drawn in the later Supreme Court decision was found inapplicable on the facts, because the assessee had not suppressed the merger and had consistently notified the authorities.

Conclusion: The proceedings and assessment order framed in the name of the non-existent amalgamating company were invalid and were quashed.

---