2018 (2) TMI 980

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....that had ceased to exist. It urges that in the facts of this case the ruling of this Court in Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax 247 CTR 500 (Del.) is inapplicable. 2. The assessee - M/s Nokia Siemens Network Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter referred to as "the old company") had filed its returns for A.Y. 2006-07 on 29.11.2006. Return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as "the Act") on 27.06.2007. However, the returns were selected for scrutiny and notice was issued under Section 143(2) of the Act on 12.10.2007. In the meanwhile, pending proceedings of amalgamation before the Karnataka High Court, an order was made on 09.01.2009, by virtue of which, the old company merged with No....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....and a final assessment order was made on 29.04.2016 in the name of the respondent/assessee. 3. The respondent/assessee appealed to the ITAT urging that the ruling in Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) squarely applied since the proceedings, to start with, culminating in the assessment order of 28.10.2010 were a nullity and that in the circumstances the DRP's directions could not have resulted in an order, based upon the proceedings that were a nullity. The ITAT accepted these arguments holding that the law declared in Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) squarely applied. 4. The Revenue argues that the respondent/assessee did not demur when the matter was remitted for consideration by the DRP and that the question of jurisdiction or the ord....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....dent from the narration of facts that in the first instance the assessment was conducted in the name of a non existing entity. The DRP to whom the matter was directed by the first remand of the ITAT, was not directed to, in turn, require the AO to "better" the original incurable illegality and here the DRP clearly did that. The fact that the matter was remitted at the instance of the assessee who did not question the remand ipso facto does not, in any manner, further the Revenue's contentions. The Revenue had also urged that even in the first place when the assessee approached the DRP, the name of the old entity was invoked and that consequently it cannot now say that the assessment was a nullity. This Court is of the opinion that the rulin....