TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (8) TMI 791
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncome of Rs. 10,68,95,940/-. The assessment was completed at a total income of Rs. 13,39,76,121/- vide order dated 31-3-2003 passed on M/s Vama Sundari Investment (P) Ltd. 2.2. Before ld. CIT(A) the assessee, inter alia, took a ground that assessment u/s 143(3) was based on irrelevant consideration and incorrect application of law and was void ab initio as the AO had completed the assessment in the name of non-existent entity. It was pointed out that the company M/s Vama Sundari Investment (P) Ltd. got merged under the scheme of amalgamation with M/s Slocum Investment Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. the appointed date viz. 1-4-2000. It was pointed out that the scheme of amalgamation was filed in the Delhi High Court on 11-4-2001 and the Hon'ble Delhi High Court vide its order dated 27-8-2001 sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation from the appointed date i.e. 1-4-2000. It was further pointed out that the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High court was taken on record by the Registrar of Companies and a certificate was issued on 8- 11-2001 by the Registrar of Companies. Accordingly, it was submitted that M/s Vama Sundari Investment (P) Ltd.) stood dissolved on 8-11-2001 and ceased to exist as a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(A), the assessee is in appeal before us and has taken following grounds of appeal: "1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order is based upon irrelevant considerations, incorrect application of law, bad in law and void ab initio. 1.1. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the impugned assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act ('the Act') in the name of a non-existent entity. 1.2. That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no estoppel in law and legal objections challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer/ validity of the assessment made can be raised for the first time during the appellate proceedings. 1.3. That the CIT(A) erred in relying upon the provisions of section 124 of the Act without appreciating that under section the assessee is required to object, during the assessment proceedings, if the Income-tax officer exercising jurisdiction is not the correct assessing officer. 2. That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,26,09,400/- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rge the onus of proving that the finance charges are allowable under section 36(1)(iii)/37 of the Act. 4. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in facts and in law in not giving direction for addition of the element of finance charges (held relatable to investment in shares) as cost of acquisition/ cost of improvement of such shares for computing capital gains on sale thereof. 5. Without prejudice, the CIT(A) erred in confirming the disallowance of interest/ expenditure incurred under section 14A without appreciating that an order under section 143(1) having been made, proviso to section 14A of the Act specifically barred invocation of that section for the assessment year 2000-01." 3. Ground nos. 1 to 1.3 deal with the basic issue regarding legality of the assessment order. Ld. Counsel for the assessee narrated the facts as noted earlier and submitted that it is evident from the assessment order that the fact of merger was brought to the notice of assessing officer because he has himself noted at page 2 of his order that the assessee company and M/s Net Work Ltd. merged with Chennai based M/s Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. Therefore, this fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... - CIT v. Express Newspaper 40 ITR 38 (Mad.); - R.C. Jain v. CIT 140 Taxman 379 (Del); - CIT v. Kumari Prabhavati Gupta 231 ITR 188 (MP); - Smt. Sudha Prasad V. Chief CIT 186 CTR 475 (Jharkhand); - Makers Development Services Ltd. Vs. CIT 40 ITD 185 (Bom); - Impsat (P) Ltd. Vs. ITO 91 ITD 354 (Del.); - Better Inv. Ltd. v. DCIT in ITA no. 301/D/2005). - Indian Management Advisors Ltd. (Del. ITAT) - Slocum Investment (P) Ltd. 101 TTJ 558 (Del) - Hewlett Packard (I) (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITA 4016/D/2005). - Modi Corp. Ltd. v. JCIT 105 TTJ 303 (Del.) - Pampasar Distillery Ltd. v. ACIT 15 SOT 331 (KOL) - Wellwest Investment P. Ltd. (ITA no. 857/Del/2004). 4.3. Ld. Counsel further relied on various decisions to submit that proceedings initiated and completed on a dead person are invalid. Ld. Counsel submitted that now this issue is squarely covered by the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Spice ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Ltd. It was the result of the scheme of the amalgamation filed before the Company Judge of this Court which was duly sanctioned vide orders dated 11th February, 2004. With this amalgamation made effective from 1st July, 2003, M/s Spice ceased to exist. That is the plain and simple effect in law. The scheme of amalgamation itself provided for this consequence, inasmuch as simultaneous/with the sanctioning of the scheme, M/s Spice was also stood dissolved by specific order of this Court. With the dissolution of this company, its name was struck off from the rolls of Companies maintained by the Registrar of Companies., A company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is a juristic person. It takes its birth/and gets life with the incorporation. It dies with the dissolution as per the provisions of the Companies Act. It is trite law that on amalgamation, the amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law. This position is even accepted by the Tribunal in para-14 of its order extracted above. Having regard this consequence provided in law, in number of cases, the Supreme Court held that assessment upon a dissolved company is impermissible as there is ....