Assessment framed in name of non-existent entity is void ab initio, defect not curable; assessee's grounds allowed

ITAT DELHI - AT held the assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio, following the Supreme Court precedent, and is not a curable defect. Consequently the assessment was treated as no order in law and the grounds raised by the assessee were allowed.

---

---

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

• Whether an assessment order framed in the name of a non-existent entity, post-merger, is valid or void ab initio.
• Whether the failure of the Assessing Officer to recognize and act upon the intimation of merger before framing the assessment affects the validity of the assessment proceedings.
• Whether participation of the successor company in assessment proceedings conducted in the name of the amalgamating company estops the successor from challenging the validity of such proceedings.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Validity of assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity post-merger

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Income Tax Act, 1961 governs assessment proceedings, with specific provisions under sections 143(3), 144C(5), and 92CA(3) relevant here. The principle that an amalgamating company ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation is well established. The Supreme Court's ruling in a precedent case clarified that assessment notices and orders must be issued in the name of the correct legal entity existing at the time of assessment.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the assessee had merged with another entity effective from 01.04.2020, as per the NCLT order dated 14.10.2022. Despite this, the draft and final assessment orders, as well as DRP directions, were issued in the name of the amalgamating (non-existent) entity. The Court emphasized that the AO was informed about the merger before framing the assessment but failed to act accordingly. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision holding that such assessments framed in the name of a non-existent entity are void ab initio.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee's return was filed in the name of the amalgamating company before merger. The merger was effective from 01.04.2020, and the AO was intimated on 02.03.2023. Despite this, the assessment orders were issued in the name of the dissolved entity. The assessee also filed objections before the DRP under the correct entity's name, proving awareness and participation under the successor's name.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that an entity ceases to exist post-merger and any assessment in its name is without jurisdiction. The failure to issue assessment orders in the name of the successor company rendered the entire assessment void.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected any argument that participation in proceedings under the non-existent entity's name could estop the successor company from challenging the validity of the assessment, citing that estoppel cannot operate against law.

Conclusions: The assessment framed in the name of the non-existent amalgamating company is not a curable defect but void ab initio. The assessment proceedings stand quashed on this ground.

Issue 2: Effect of failure to recognize merger intimation before framing assessment

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The procedural requirements under the Income Tax Act mandate that the AO must issue notices and frame assessments in the name of the correct legal entity. The Supreme Court's ruling underscores the importance of consistency and certainty in tax proceedings.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: Despite the assessee's intimation of merger, the AO proceeded to frame assessment ignoring this fact. The Court held that such failure undermines the legal validity of the assessment and violates principles of certainty and uniformity in tax law.

Key evidence and findings: Intimation of merger was given well before the assessment order was passed. The AO's non-compliance with this fact was evident from the record.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that jurisdiction must be invoked on a correct legal basis. Ignoring merger intimation and proceeding against a non-existent entity is jurisdictionally flawed.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court did not accept any implied waiver or estoppel argument arising from the assessee's participation in the proceedings under the wrong entity's name.

Conclusions: The failure of the AO to act upon merger intimation vitiates the assessment proceedings, rendering them void.

Issue 3: Whether participation in proceedings under non-existent entity estops challenge to validity

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The principle that estoppel cannot operate against law is well settled. Participation in proceedings does not confer jurisdiction where none exists.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court held that participation by the successor company in proceedings conducted in the name of the amalgamating company cannot estop it from asserting that the assessment is invalid due to lack of jurisdiction.

Key evidence and findings: The assessee had filed objections before the DRP naming the correct successor company, indicating no acceptance of jurisdiction over the dissolved entity.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that legal correctness and jurisdictional validity cannot be overridden by procedural participation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The Court rejected any contention that the assessee's conduct amounted to waiver or estoppel.

Conclusions: Participation in proceedings under a non-existent entity's name does not preclude challenge to the validity of such proceedings.

---