Amalgamation and tax notice validity: assessment fails when notice is not issued to the transferee entity, despite Section 292BB.

Where an amalgamation has taken effect before issuance of notice under Section 143(2), assessment proceedings must be initiated in the name of the transferee entity, not the amalgamated bank. Section 292BB cures defects in service or manner of service of notice, but it does not cure the complete absence of notice to the correct assessee. On the facts, the return stood in the name of the amalgamated bank, yet the undertaking had already vested in the transferee bank when notice was issued, so post-merger proceedings had to be pursued against the transferee. The assessment was therefore held invalid for want of jurisdiction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the assessment framed in the name of Union Bank of India was valid when the notice under Section 143(2) was issued only in the name of the amalgamated entity Andhra Bank, and whether Section 292BB cured the defect.

Analysis: The return had been filed in the name of Andhra Bank, but by the time notice under Section 143(2) was issued, the amalgamation scheme had already come into force and the undertaking of Andhra Bank had vested in Union Bank of India. The assessment proceedings were therefore required to be initiated in the name of the transferee bank. The deeming fiction under Section 292BB cures defects in service or manner of service of notice, but it does not cure a complete absence of notice from the department in the name of the correct assessee. The statutory scheme governing the merger and the provisions on succession also supported the view that proceedings after the effective date had to be pursued against the transferee bank.

Conclusion: The assessment was invalid for want of jurisdiction because no notice under Section 143(2) was issued to Union Bank of India, and Section 292BB did not save the defect.

---