AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (2) TMI 280
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rejudicial to the interests of the appellant is bad and erroneous in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in justifying the action of the assessing officer in passing an order against M/s. Solectron EMS India Ltd. even though the said entity does not exist on the date of the passing the order. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the assessing officer in passing an assessment order against a non-existing person. 4. That the order u/s. 147 is without jurisdiction. 5. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on facts in upholding th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....als on record and is in fact contrary to the materials on record. 11 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have reduced the profits of EHTP unit by a sum of Rs. 45,23,178 (Rs. 34,99,559 + 10,23,619). 12. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have reduced the subcontracting charges, travelling expenses and the bank charges from export turnover for the purpose of calculation of deduction u/s. 10B of the Act. 13. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have reduced the freight from export turnover while calculating deduction u/s. 10B of the Act even though the expenses was incurred in INR. 14. Without prejudice to above grounds, that the learned Commissioner of In....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Hon'ble Karnataka High court by order dated 16.7.2010. Therefore, the appeals were filed in the name of Centum Electronics Ltd. When the matter stood thus, the Ld. DCIT, Circle 11(2), Bangalore issued notice/s 148 of the Act to M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. filed a letter dated 25.3.2013 wherein it was stated that the return in response to sec. 148 has been filed on 20/03/2013. It also sought a copy of the recorded reasons. The Ld. AO furnished the copy of the recorded reasons vide his letter dated 3.4.2013. M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. filed its objections on 27.4.2013. The Ld. A.O. disposed off the objections vide communication dated 15.5.2013. M/s. Centum Electronics Ltd. filed a writ petition before ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as per the decision of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16.7.2010. He submitted that it is now well settled that assessment order cannot be passed in the name of amalgamating/transferor-company. The Ld. AR has relied on the following decisions: a) Marshall Sons & Co. (India) ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 223 ITR 809 (SC) b) CIT & Another Vs. Intel Technology India (P) Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 272 (Kar) c) Principal CIT Vs. Nokia Solutions & Network India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 402 ITR 21 (Del) d) Emerald Company Ltd. Vs. ITO reported in 46 ITR (Trib) 619 2.5. The Ld. AR submitted that in all the above cases it is held that an assessment cannot be made on a non-existent company. It is clear from the reassessment order that the a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essment order does not stand the test of the law. Hon'ble Court also held that mere participation in assessment proceedings by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. 3. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. We find that the 'Solectron EMS India Ltd.,' was merged with 'Centrum Electronics Ltd' vide order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 16/07/2010, wherein the scheme of merger under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies' Act, 1956 was approved and such scheme became operative from 01/04/2009. In view of this, it is apparent that 'Solectron EMS India Ltd.' ceased to exist by virtue of this order with effect fr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at 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 issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. 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 (supra) on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the cas....