Assessment issued in name of non-existent amalgamated entity is void ab initio where AO was informed; not curable under s.292B

ITAT AHMEDABAD held that an assessment drafted in the name of a non-existent amalgamated entity is void ab initio where the AO had been informed of amalgamation; such defect is not a mere procedural irregularity curable under s.292B. Relying on SC precedent, the tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the assessment as invalid.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity, which has been amalgamated into another company, is valid or void.
• Whether intimation of amalgamation to the Assessing Officer prior to assessment proceedings affects the validity of the assessment order.
• Whether the defect of passing assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity can be cured under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.
• Whether failure to object under Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act regarding jurisdiction affects the validity of the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity.
• Whether the downstream proceedings including Transfer Pricing Officer's order, Dispute Resolution Panel's directions, and final assessment order are vitiated if the foundational draft assessment order is invalid.
• Applicability and distinction between the Supreme Court decisions in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and PCIT v. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. in the context of assessment orders passed on non-existent entities.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of Assessment Order Passed on a Non-Existent Entity Post-Amalgamation

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. held that an assessment order passed on a non-existent entity, after the Assessing Officer has been duly informed about the amalgamation, is void and not merely a procedural irregularity. This principle has been consistently followed by various High Courts and Tribunals.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court observed that the amalgamated entity ceased to exist from the effective date of amalgamation, which was duly intimated to the Assessing Officer well before the assessment proceedings. Despite this, the assessment order, including the draft and final orders, were passed in the name of the non-existent entity. This foundational defect renders the entire assessment void ab initio.

Key Evidence and Findings: The assessee provided multiple written intimations to the Assessing Officer and Transfer Pricing Officer about the amalgamation, including letters dated 24.06.2014, 20.10.2014, 21.10.2015, 12.01.2016, 18.03.2016, and 07.04.2016. These were undisputed and on record. The Assessing Officer's awareness of the amalgamation was evident from the assessment order itself, which recorded the return filed only for the nine months up to the effective date of amalgamation.

Application of Law to Facts: Since the Assessing Officer was aware of the amalgamation and the non-existence of the erstwhile company, passing an assessment order in its name is invalid. The Court emphasized that the assessment order must be passed in the name of the existing legal entity.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department contended that references to the non-existent company were clerical errors curable under Section 292B. The Court rejected this, holding that such a substantive error goes to the root of jurisdiction and cannot be cured as a procedural defect. The Department's reliance on Mahagun Realtors was found misplaced as that case involved non-intimation of amalgamation, unlike the present case.

Conclusion: The assessment order passed in the name of the non-existent amalgamated company is void ab initio and invalid.

Issue 2: Effect of Intimation of Amalgamation to Assessing Officer on Validity of Assessment

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki distinguished from Mahagun Realtors on the basis of intimation. Where intimation is given, the assessment order passed on the non-existent entity is void; where no intimation is given, different principles apply.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the assessee had repeatedly informed the Assessing Officer of the amalgamation prior to the assessment proceedings. This fact was not disputed and was acknowledged by the Department itself in its chronology. Therefore, the factual matrix squarely falls within the Maruti Suzuki ratio.

Application of Law to Facts: Since intimation was given, the assessment order passed on the erstwhile company is invalid. The Department's attempt to rely on Mahagun Realtors, where no intimation was given, was rejected as factually distinguishable.

Conclusion: Timely and repeated intimation of amalgamation to the Assessing Officer invalidates any assessment order passed in the name of the non-existent entity.

Issue 3: Curability of Defect under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act

Legal Framework and Precedents: Section 292B allows correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes apparent from the record. However, substantive jurisdictional errors cannot be cured under this provision.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court held that passing an assessment order on a non-existent entity is a substantive illegality that affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. This is not a mere procedural or clerical error and therefore cannot be cured under Section 292B.

Treatment of Competing Arguments: The Department argued that since the final assessment order mentioned the amalgamated entity's name (albeit in brackets), the defect was technical and curable. The Court rejected this, relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki, which explicitly held such errors are not curable under Section 292B.

Conclusion: The defect of passing assessment order on a non-existent entity is not curable under Section 292B and renders the assessment void.

Issue 4: Impact of Non-Exercise of Option to Object under Section 124(3) of the Income Tax Act

Legal Framework: Section 124(3) provides the assessee the right to object to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer within a specified time.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court clarified that the issue in this case is not about jurisdictional objection under Section 124(3), which relates to the correct jurisdictional Assessing Officer. Instead, the issue is the invalidity of assessment on a non-existent entity. Hence, the provisions of Section 124(3) are not applicable.

Conclusion: Failure to object under Section 124(3) does not validate an assessment order passed on a non-existent entity.

Issue 5: Validity of Downstream Proceedings Based on Invalid Draft Assessment Order

Legal Framework and Precedents: The draft assessment order under Section 144C forms the foundation for final assessment and related proceedings.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: Since the draft assessment order was passed on a non-existent entity and is void, all subsequent proceedings including Transfer Pricing Officer's order, Dispute Resolution Panel's directions, and the final assessment order are also vitiated.

Conclusion: The entire assessment process collapses if the foundational draft order is invalid.

Issue 6: Applicability and Distinction Between Maruti Suzuki and Mahagun Realtors Decisions

Legal Framework and Precedents: The Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki held that assessment orders passed on non-existent entities after intimation of amalgamation are void. In Mahagun Realtors, the Court took a contrary view but distinguished on facts where no intimation was given.

Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The Court noted that the present case facts align with Maruti Suzuki, as intimation was given. The Department's reliance on Mahagun Realtors was misplaced since that case involved absence of intimation. The Court also cited various High Court decisions which distinguished Mahagun Realtors on similar grounds.

Conclusion: Maruti Suzuki governs the present case; Mahagun Realtors is distinguishable and inapplicable due to factual differences.

---