TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (10) TMI 350
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Assessee are for two different years but the issues in both the appeals are identical and the submissions made by him for both the years would be common and therefore, both the appeals can be heard together. The aforesaid submissions of the Learned AR were not controverted by the Learned DR. We therefore, for the sake of convenience proceed to dispose of both the appeals by a consolidated order but however proceed with the facts for A.Y. 2001-02. 3. The relevant facts as culled from the material on records are as under: 4. Assessee is a company which was stated to have been engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of electronic meters. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2001-02 on 04.10.2001 in the name of Duke Arni....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2 That the CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there is no estoppels in law and legal objections challenging the jurisdiction of the assessing officer/validity of the assessment made could be raised for the first time during the appellate proceedings. 1.3 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT (A) failed to appreciate that initiation of proceedings was barred by limitation prescribed in the proviso to section 147 of the Act and consequently, the assessment order was illegal and bad in law. 1.4 That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating that the reassessment proceedings were initiated by the assessing officer without forming reasonable belief of escapement of inc....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....jurisdictional Assessing Officer. 7. He pointed to the chart of chronology of events filed by him and from there he submitted that assessee had filed the return of income u/s 139(1) in the name of Duke Arnics Electronics Ltd. on 04.10.2001 before the Assessing Officer (AO) at Hyderabad. The AO at Hyderabad vide order dated 29.09.2003 passed the assessment order u/s 143(3) accepting the return of income of the assessee. Assessee decided to shift its Registered Office from the state of Andhra Pradesh to the National Capital Territory of Delhi and accordingly it filed necessary application before the Company Law Board (CLB) at Chennai. He submitted that the CLB vide order passed on 26.05.2004 permitted the transfer of Registered Office of a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) and the decision in the case of ACIT vs. Garuda Imaging & Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No.449 of 2016 order dated 05.01.2018) passed by the Delhi Bench of Tribunal. He further submitted that against the order passed by the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Garuda Imaging & Diagnostics Pvt. Ltd. (supra). Revenue had preferred appeal before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal of the Revenue (ITA No.1240/2018 order dated 11.10.2019). He placed on record the copy of the aforesaid orders. He further submitted that in the present case, the reassessment order is invalid also for the reason that the notice for reope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... for A.Y. 2001- 02 has been issued by the AO at Hyderabad on 20.02.2007 which is after the date of which Dukes Arnics Electronics had ceased to exist. 10. It is a settled law that upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamating Company ceased to exist in the eyes of law & it cannot be regarded as a "person" in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act and consequently no assessment proceeding can be initiated or an assessment order can be passed. We find that Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2016) 107 Taxmann.com 375 (SC) has held that the issuance of jurisdiction notice and assessment thereafter passed in the name of non-existing company i.e. amalgamating Company having ceased to exist as a r....