Assessment order against amalgamated company and jurisdictional framing under Section 260A(4): court permits raising jurisdictional question and defers hearing

An assessment order issued in the name of an entity that ceased to exist due to amalgamation is without jurisdiction and liable to be set aside; the loss of legal existence by merger nullifies authority to assess the non existent entity. The court further addressed the scope of appeals under the provision limiting questions to those framed for hearing, holding that a substantial question of law that goes to the root of jurisdiction may be framed even if not raised earlier, because consent cannot confer jurisdiction where it is inherently lacking. The court framed the jurisdictional question and deferred further hearing to allow arguments on that issue.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal question considered in this judgment is whether the assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed on a non-existent entity, is void ab initio and bad in law. This issue challenges the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer when the entity assessed has been merged and no longer exists as a separate legal entity.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Relevant legal framework and precedents:

The legal framework involves Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which deals with the assessment of income. The key precedent cited is the Supreme Court's decision in PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited, where it was held that an assessment order issued in the name of a non-existent company due to amalgamation is a substantive illegality. Another relevant case is PCIT vs. Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., which purportedly moderated the implications of the Maruti Suzuki decision.

Court's interpretation and reasoning:

The court considered whether the jurisdictional notice and assessment order issued to a non-existent entity due to merger are valid. It noted that the question of law raised, which was not previously considered by lower authorities, could still be framed if it goes to the root of jurisdiction and does not require new factual investigations.

Key evidence and findings:

The court found material evidence indicating that the Assessing Officer was aware of the merger of the companies involved. For the assessment years 1994-1995 and 1995-1996, the records explicitly referenced the merger order, and adjustments were made to the refunds of the merged companies.

Application of law to facts:

The court applied the principles from the Maruti Suzuki case, which established that jurisdictional errors in issuing notices to non-existent entities render such actions void. The court considered the evidence showing the Assessing Officer's awareness of the merger, which supported the argument that the assessment orders were void due to jurisdictional defects.

Treatment of competing arguments:

The respondents argued that the Maruti Suzuki decision was diluted by the Mahagun Realtors case and that the issue of jurisdiction did not arise as the Assessing Officer was not informed of the merger. They also contended that there was no prejudice since the merged entity represented the companies. The court noted these arguments but found that the jurisdictional question was significant enough to warrant framing the additional question of law.

Conclusions:

The court concluded that the question of law proposed by the appellant was indeed involved in the appeals and went to the root of jurisdiction. Therefore, it framed the additional substantial question of law for consideration.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning:

"Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act passed on a non-existent entity is bad in law, void ab-initioRs."

Core principles established:

The judgment reaffirms the principle that an assessment order issued to a non-existent entity due to amalgamation is a substantive illegality. It also highlights the court's power to frame new questions of law if they pertain to jurisdiction and do not require new factual determinations.

Final determinations on each issue:

The court determined that the additional substantial question of law regarding the jurisdictional validity of the assessment orders should be framed and considered. The hearing was deferred to allow parties to address this newly framed question, recognizing its potential impact on the jurisdictional authority of the Assessing Officer.

The matters were scheduled for further hearing on 27 January 2025, allowing time for comprehensive arguments on the jurisdictional issue raised by the additional question. The court emphasized the need to address this question, as its resolution could fundamentally affect the outcome of the appeals.

---