TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (7) TMI 1241
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f composite order to avoid repetition of discussion. 2. Appellant, Gurgaon Gramin Bank (now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank) (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') by filing the present appeals bearing ITA Nos.4069 & 4070/Del/2018 sought to set aside the impugned order dated 02.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak qua the assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively on the grounds inter alia that :- "ITA NO.4069/DEL/2018 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the order u/s 143(3) dated 27/12/2016 of the Ld AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), being passed in the name of the non-existence assessee, is void ab initio and therefore the same needs to be q....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....extent of Rs. 22,00,000/- by not fully accepting the provision for bad & doubtful debts made by the bank for the purpose of deduction u/s 36(1)(viia) of IT Act, 1961." 3. Appellant, Haryana Gramin Bank (now Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank) (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee') by filing the present appeals bearing ITA Nos.4071 & 4072/Del/2018 sought to set aside the impugned order dated 28.03.2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), Rohtak qua the assessment years 2014-15 & 2013-14 respectively on the identical grounds, except the difference of additions/disallowances, inter alia that :- "ITA NO.4070/DEL/2018 1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and provisions of the law, the order u/s 143(....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by Syndicate Bank) and erstwhile Haryana Gramin Bank HO at Rohtak (sponsored by PNB) with 50% shares of Government of India, 35% shares of Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank & 15% shares of the Haryana Government respectively. 5. During the year under consideration, Assessing Officer (AO) while assessing the income of the assessee bank, Haryana Gramin Bank, under the head "business or profession" made disallowance of Rs. 7,89,000/- & Rs. 46,01,000/- and Rs. 1,44,33,212/- Rs. 1,09,98,527 on account of claim of deduction representing 'provisions for standard assets' and amortization of premium over the securities claimed by the assessee under the head "Held to Maturity (HTM)" respectively and thereby assessed the total income of assessee bank at ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ank have been amalgamated with M/s. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank w.e.f. 29.11.2013. Ld. AR for the assessee also brought on record copy of letter dated 05.12.2016, available at pages 7 to 10 of the paper book, whereby AO has been duly intimated regarding amalgamation of erstwhile Gurgaon Gramin Bank and Haryana Gramin Bank with M/s. Sarva Haryana Gramin Bank during the course of assessment. Ld. AR for the assessee contended that assessments for AYs 2013-14 & 2014-15 framed in the name of non-existent entity i.e. Haryana Gramin Bank and Gurgaon Gramin Bank dated 26.12.2016 & 27.12.2016 respectively are nullity and as such liable to be quashed. Ld. AR for the assessee also relied upon section 170(2) of the Act and also relied upon the decision r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pra) and as such, assessment framed in this case is not sustainable having been framed in the name of non-existent entity, rather the AO was required to frame the assessment in the name of amalgamated or merged entity. 12. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) decided the identical issue by returning following findings :- "15. The final assessment order was passed on 31 October 2016 in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee. While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL and that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither ex....