TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (4) TMI 121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....5 (appointed date). The name of amalgamating company was changed from M/s Mcdowell & Co Ltd to M/s United Spirits Ltd. The amalgamation scheme was approved by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, vide its order dated 23.6.2006 and by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, vide its order dated 31.7.2006. (b) The registered officer of M/s Herbertsons Ltd was in Mumbai and the Registered officer of M/s United Spirits Ltd was in Bangalore. (c) Hence, the assessee named M/s Herbertson Ltd ceased to exist with effect from 1.4.2005. (d) The return of income for the assessment year under consideration was filed on 29-10-2005 under the name M/s Herbertsons Ltd. (i.e., prior to the orders of Hon'ble High Courts) (e) The assessing officer passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) on 31.12.2007 in the name of "M/s Herbertsons Ltd". The assessing officer was the Additional CIT, Range 2(1), Mumbai. (f) The Ld CIT(A), vide his order dated 26.11.2008 passed in the name of "M/s Herbertsons Ltd", however, quashed the assessment order with the following observations:- "I have considered the assessment order and the submissions filed by the appellant....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....fied. There is a finding based on which the reopening was done and restrictions imposed in subsection 2 are not attracted. Hence, this argument of the appellant is legally not correct. I do not find strength in the argument of the appellant that the company is not existent, the assessment of United Spirits is done by the same officer and the present order on non existent company is bad in law. The merger is with effect from 1.4.2005 pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07. The assessments involved are for AYs 200304 to 2005-06 which are periods prior to date of merger i.e. 1.4.05. The company was in existence in that period and was rightly assessed so by the AO. The only dispute in earlier appeal on which the order was annulled was on the issue of jurisdiction since it was contended on the date of order the officer of United Spirits had jurisdiction on the appellant though the issue pertains to the period prior to merger. The action of the AO is as per Law. 3.8 The next issue of contention of the appellant is regarding absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to initiate proceedings u/s 148. It is fairly established now under the amended provisions, wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....India P Ltd (SSL Ltd) filed its return of income for AY 2003-04 on 28.11.2003. The said company was amalgamated with M/s Intel Technology India P Ltd with effect from 1.4.2004, vide order dated 28-05-2004 passed by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court. The AO, however, passed the assessment order in the name of M/s SSL Ltd, even though the fact of merger of the assessee with M/s Intel Technology India P Ltd was intimated to him. The ITAT held that the assessment order passed by the assessing officer was null and void and without jurisdiction and accordingly quashed the same. When the matter was taken before Hon'ble Karnataka High Court, the view of the ITAT was upheld. The relevant observations made by Hon'ble Karnataka High Court are extracted below:- "4. This appeal was admitted by order dated 21.7.2010 on the substantial questions of law as had been framed in the memo which reads as under : (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer on M/s Software & Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd., after being intimated about the merger with M/s Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., was without jurisdiction against the said c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ions of the Apex Court and other High Courts, clearly held that the framing of assessment against the non-existing entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity, but, a jurisdictional defect and as there cannot be any assessment against the dead person. 7. In the present case also, the proceedings had been initiated against a non-existing company/SSS Limited even after the amalgamation of the said company with M/s Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd.. We do not see any good ground to differ with the said judgment of the Delhi High Court. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra), these appeals are dismissed and we decide the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 9. We may, however, mention that on the basis of the returns filed by SSS Limited for the assessment year 2003-04, the department may proceed for making assessment in accordance with law and in terms of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These appeals stand disposed off in the aforesaid terms." In view of the above said ....