TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 830
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed Assessing officer ('AO') has erred in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 29 August 2011 to Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Private Limited ('Perot BPS') and Vision Health Source India (P) Limited without appreciating the fact that it is not in accordance with law to issue notice to two different persons by way of single notice. b) The Learned AO has failed to appreciate the facts that the Perot BPS has merged with Dell International Services India Private Limited. The scheme of amalgamation is effective from 27 September 2011 and the appointed date of the aforesaid merger is 01 April 2010. c) The Learned AO has erred in issuing notices under section 142(1) of the Act on various dates (26 December 2013, 09 January 2014, 24 January 2014, 19 February 2014) in the name of Perot BPS without appreciating the fact that there cannot be an assessment on a nonexistent person. The Assessing officer ought to have issued notice to the merged entity i.e. Dell International Services India Private Limited, for completing the assessment. d) The Learned AO has erred in issuing order dated 12 March 2014 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C of the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nsel for the Assessee while reiterating plea as set forth in the application for admission of additional ground. 5. We have considered the prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal and are of the view that the additional grounds of appeal deserve to be admitted for adjudication as the facts for adjudication of additional grounds of appeal are already available on record. In the following judicial pronouncements it has been held that additional grounds which has a bearing on tax liability of an Assessee has to be admitted for adjudication. * CIT vs. S. Nelliappan [66 ITR 722 (SC)] wherein it was held that Tribunal may give leave to the assessee to urge grounds not set forth in the memorandum of appeal, and in deciding the appeal the Tribunal is not restricted to the grounds set forth in the memorandum of appeal or taken by leave of the Tribunal. * Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. vs. CIT [199 ITR 351 (Bom)] wherein it was held that there is nothing in section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act which limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Tribunal in any manner. The phrase "pass such order thereon" found in Sec. 254(1) of the Act does not in any....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ess Solutions India Private Limited, an entity which was not in existence on the date when the order of assessment dated 12.3.2014 was passed. He relied on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pr. CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5409 of 2019) (SLP No. 4298 of 2019) judgment dated 25.7.2019). 8. The Ld. DR for the revenue by relying upon the decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT - (2018) 405 ITR 296 contended that notice issued in the name of erstwhile private limited company, despite company ceasing to exist, would not invalidate the assessment proceedings as the same was not a jurisdictional error but an irregularity and procedural/technical lapse which could be cured under section 292B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). He also submitted that the Assessee never brought to the notice of the AO, the factum of the erstwhile company having ceased to exist. 9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions. The issue that arises for consideration is as to, whether assessment order passed by the AO against non-existent company is sustainable in the eyes ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee filed appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Assessee filed return of income on 14.10.2010 in the name of M/s Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Private Limited By order of Company Law Board, Chennai Benches and the order of the Karnataka High Court, Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Private Limited amalgamated with Dell International Services India Private Limited, under a scheme of Amalgamation and ceased to exist as a company on its dissolution without winding up with effect from the effective date of the scheme which was 1.4.2010. On 4.1.2011, the AO of Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Pvt.Ltd., was informed by the said company regarding the factum of amalgamation and transfer of the assessment records to the AO. On 14.3.2014, the AO passed order of assessment in the name of Perot Systems Business Process Solutions India Private Limited Decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: While upholding HC's decision, SC held that the assessment done in the name of amalgamating company was void ab initio. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when once the scheme of amalgamation is approved the amalgamating company ceases to exist and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ight Hospitality, an LLP, had taken over on 13 May 2016 and acquired the rights and liabilities of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 200835. It instituted writ proceedings for challenging a notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act 1961 dated 30 March 2017 for AY 2010-2011. The "reasons to believe" made a reference to a tax evasion report received from the investigation unit of the income tax department. The facts were ascertained by the investigation unit. The reasons to believe referred to the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the findings recorded in it. Though the notice under Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to exist upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Court held "substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record" to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake. The tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PA....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in: (i) Rajender Kumar Sehgal; (ii) Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel; and (iii) Alamelu Veerappan. 30. There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in Spice Enfotainment (dated 2 November 2017) 36 and in Skylight Hospitality LLP (dated 6 April 201837). 31. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292B. 32. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates th....