TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1204
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d (for short M/s.SIIL). The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, in nut shell, narrated the background stating that on 25.06.1965, M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited (SIIL) was incorporated. The said Company filed Return of Income on 29.09.2008, for the Assessment Year 2008-2009. M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited has merged with M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, with effect from 17.08.2013. In terms of the scheme of amalgamation and the arrangement inter-alia between M/s.Sesa Goa Limited and M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, as sanctioned by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court, Goa Bench and Hon'ble Madras High Court, vide orders dated 03.05.2013 and 25.07.2013. Thereafter, the said Company namely, M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, was amalgamated with M/s.Vedanta Limited, the petitioner in the present Writ Petition, with effect from 21.04.2015. In this back drop, the learned Senior Counsel raised a question that whether the notice, issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act to a non-existing person, be validated. Admittedly, Section 148 notice was issued to the principal officer M/s.Sesa Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. No such company was in e....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....me Tax, Circle 9(1), pursuant to the notice under Section 143(2) for an adjournment of the assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 until the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 were completed. On 27 October 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9 (1) addressed a communication to the Principal Officer, SPIL seeking a response to a detailed questionnaire. Thereafter, on 4 September 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1) called for disclosure of information in the course of the assessment for AY 2012-13. The communication was addressed to: "The Principal Officer M/s Suzuki Power Train India Limited (Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited)." 4.The Hon'ble Apex Court of India made an observation that the final assessment order was passed on 31st October, 2016, in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) and considered the fact that the final assessment order was also issued in the name of a non-existing entity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the arguments as advanced on behalf of the assessee and made a finding as follows: "31.Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death. Section 170 provides as follows: "170. (1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession,- (a) the predecessor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession; (b) the successor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the assessment of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession and of the previous year preceding that year shall be made on the successor in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been mad....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....algamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. " 5.In the said case also, the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamating Company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was also issued only in its name. In the present case, it is contended that the petitioner, vide letter dated 23rd September, 2013, sent an information to the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Chennai - 64, stating that the M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited has merged with M/s.Sesa Goa Limited, with effect from 17.08.2013, in terms of the scheme of amalgamation. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was informed about the amalgamation and the said merger, p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e is changed, thereafter, the liability also is to be shifted to the amalgamated Company and the notice sent to the erst-while Company cannot be invalidated merely on the ground that there was an error which was corrected subsequently by the department through subsequent letters and therefore, the mistakes/error/typographical errors are rectifiable under Section 292 B of the Act. Therefore, in the present case, the ingredients under Section 170 as well as Section 292 B would be squarely applicable and the Writ Petition is liable to be rejected. 8.The learned Senior Standing Counsel further made a submission that in the present case, the petitioner was frequently changing their name on many occasions and the place of the registered office, that is to say, from Tuticorin, Chennai, Goa and to Delhi. Therefore, the Income Tax department found it very difficult to serve the notices on some occasions and therefore, such mistakes if at all any, cannot be a ground to invalidate the entire reopening proceedings, which would otherwise cause greater injury to the revenue. It is pertinent to note that while changing the registered office, the name of the Company is also changed on several o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a possibility of error, even if a letter is communicated to the respondent, by the petitioner, regarding change of name and amalgamation. The impugned notice is addressed to the Principal Officer, M/s. Sesa Sterlite Industries Limited. However, the name of the petitioner Company, prior to 2013, was M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and subsequently, it was merged with M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited. On close reading of the names, it was originally M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited and subsequently, it was M/s.Sesa Goa Limited and thereafter, M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited and finally, M/s.Vedanta Limited. Considering the first three names, the words are relatively closer and the respondent has erroneously stated as M/s.Sesa Sterlite Industries (India) Limited, instead of M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited. The subsequent name of 'Sesa' was added by mistake. Further the word 'Sesa' is not alien to the petitioner Company. The word 'Sesa' is used while changing the name of the Company. As pointed out earlier, M/s.Sterlite Industries (India) Limited was merged and renamed as M/s.Sesa Goa Limited and thereafter, M/s.Sesa Sterlite Limited. As the name &#....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eturn of income in the changed name and the original name may be maintained in the PAN records. In other words, in the PAN records, sometimes, the original name is mentioned, as the assessee has to submit a separate application for change of name in the PAN records. However, if the Personal Account Number is correctly mentioned, then it indicates the person against whom such proceedings are initiated and thus, such errors are to be neglected and is to be corrected for the purpose of continuing the proceedings. This is happening on many occasions. Some time, the address in the Personal Account Number and the address in the return of income may vary on account of change of name and office. Under those circumstances, the Income Tax Department always verified the Personal Account Number and processed the return of income by following the procedures contemplated. These mistakes are quite common in the Income Tax Department. Thus, the verifications are done mostly with reference to the Permanent Account Number and in the event of no change in the Permanent Account Number, then it is to be construed that the notice was issued to the person to whom it is intended to be issued. Issuan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law................" 13. As far as the present Writ Petition is concerned, admittedly, the notice under Section 148 was issued in a wrong name. However, close reading of the name of the Company would reveal that the first word 'Sesa' is not alien to the petitioner Company and the very same word is used by the petitioner subsequently. The said mistake was pointed out by the petitioner. The department issued a corrigendum, wherein again they have committed a mistake. The reason stated by the department is that the Company is having the habit of frequently changing their names as well as their registered office and the said conduct of the Company created confusion in the department and therefore, the mistake cannot be a ground to vitiate the entire proceedings. However, in the present case, the Assessing Officer has taken steps to correct the mistake and in letter dated 06.08.2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, narrated the entire facts and circumstances for the mistake earlier committed by the department and thereafter, the proceedings were conducted in the correct name of the petitioner and the fi....