TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (2) TMI 589
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ve periods and that the amalgamation of the original assessee corporate had rendered the assessment framed against it as void. 3. The facts relevant for deciding this appeal are that on 20.10.2008, a search and seizure action was conducted in the cases of B.K.Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra, M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and others connected. Based upon the said search, and the materials secured during that proceedings, block assessments were finalized in respect of those assessees. The Assessing Officer (AO) was of the opinion that during the course of the search, materials were seized which belonged to the respondents/assessees and accordingly issued notice to M/s Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd. on 06.07.2010. By that time, M/s Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd. - as noticed at the outset in this judgment - had been amalgamated with M/s Lakhanpal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. The assessment was finalized on 31.12.2010 by the AO. In the course of assessment, the various additions were made. This was the subject matter of appeal to the CIT(A). It was urged in the appeal that on account of amalgamation and by operation of Section 170 of the Income Tax Act, the income tax authorities were under a duty, up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ections* raised by the assessee have become infructuous and they don't need adjudication. 5. It is urged on behalf of the revenue that the assessment as framed, could not have been set aside. To say so, learned counsel firstly contended that the AO took note of the fact that the M/s Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd. had been amalgamated as is evident from the fact that the assessment was framed in respect of "Micron Steels", and consequently the assessee effectively participated and made its view on its own and filed its return. Learned counsel contended that the operation of Section 292(B), therefore, precluded the assessee's contention with regard to nullity of the entire proceedings. 6. This Court notices, at the outset, that the issue urged is no longer res integra. As stated earlier, Spice Entertainment (supra) is an authority for the proposition that completion of assessment in respect of a nonexistent company, due to the amalgamation order, would render assessment in the name and in respect of the original assessee company, a nullity. In Spice Entertainment (supra) after referring to Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT, 186 ITR 278, this Court held as follows: &....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is invalid, initiation of the proceedings under Section 153 C and on a company which is non-existent and has already been amalgamated with other company is nullity. Thus from each angle, Section 292 B is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Spice Entertainment (supra) this Court held as follows: 12. Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. Section 292B of the Act reads as under:- "292B. No return of income assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings furnished or made or issue or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reasons of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sp; "Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act do not authorize the AO to ignore a defect of a substantive nature and it is, therefore, that the aforesaid provision categorically records that a return would not be treated as invalid, if the same "in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act". Insofar as the return under reference is concerned, in terms of Section 140 of the 1961 Act, the same cannot be treated to be even a return filed by the respondent assessee, as the same does not even bear her signatures and had not even been verified by her. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept that the return allegedly filed by the assessee was in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of Section 292B of the 1961 Act. The....