TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 1943
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... apart from challenging the Assessment Order in making transfer pricing adjustments pursuant to the direction of the DRP on merits, also challenged the validity of order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer by way of additional ground. The additional ground filed by the assessee reads as under: - "Additional ground of appeal 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant submits that the impugned assessment order dated 24 January 2014 passed by the learned AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is bad in law as Siemens Information Processing Services Private Limited has ceased to exist on the date of the impugned order on account of its merger with Siemens Technology and Services Private Limited with effect from 01 October 201 1, thereby the entire assessment proceedings be regarded to be void ab-initio. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that since the additional ground is purely legal ground going to the very jurisdiction and validity of Assessment Order the same be admitted. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Services Private Limited with effect from 23 April 2012 20 June 2012 Page 347-349 of paper book filed on 15 March 2017 Letter issued by the learned Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-12(3). Bangalore to the learned Assistant/ Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-7(2), Mumbai for transfer of case of the Appellant from Bangalore to Mumbai 26 December 2012 Page 350-351 of paper book filed on 15 March 2017 Order passed by the learned Transfer Pricing Officer under Section 92CA(3) of the Act 15 January 2013 Page 72-124 of the Appeal set dated 28 February 2014 Draft assessment order passed by the learned AO under Section 144C(1) read with Section 143(3) of the Act 18 February 2013 Page 66-71 of the Appeal set dated 28 February 2014 Directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel under Section 144C(5) of the Act 28 November 2013 Page 12-25 of the Appeal set dated 28 February 2014 Final assessment order passed by the learned AO under Section 143(3) read with Section 144C( 13) of the Act 24 January 2014 Page 9-11 of the appeal set dated 28 February 6. Therefore, it was contended that post amalgamation the amalgamating company ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....er the Ld. DR submits that the Assessment Order dated 24.01.2014 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Act was on the directions given by the DRP and in the DRP's order name of the assessee has been mentioned that M/s. Siemens Information Processing Services Pvt. Ltd.,(successor of M/s. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd.,). Therefore, the Ld.DR submits that since the DRP has passed the order in the name of M/s. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., the amalgamated company the error committed by the Assessing Officer in writing "Successor of" appears to be typographical error and it is an omission in terms of Section 292B of the Act. 9. Ld.DR further submits that even if it is held that the Assessment Order is in the name of the amalgamating company which ceased to exist from 01.10.2011 it is submitted that assessment for the A.Y. 2009-10 relevant to the Financial Year 2008-09, which the period prior to the date of amalgamation can be made in the name of the amalgamating company in view of the proviso of section 170(1)(a) of the Act, which provides that "in the case of succession of business, predecessor shall be assessed in respect of the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rom 1st October, 2011 our company has been amalgamated with M/s. Siemens Information Systems Ltd, which has its registered office at 130, Pandurang Budhkar Marg, Worli, Mumbai - 400 018 and is assessed under the jurisdiction of Mumbai Range 7(2). The PAN of Siemens Information Systems Ltd. is AAACS9788 E This is for your record and information please. Yours Faithfully, For Siemens Information Processing Services Private Limited Authorized Signatory Encl.: Copy -of High Court order 11. As could be seen from the above letter the Assessing Officer was intimated by the assessee that SIPSPL with PAN: AAFCS1164H has been merged with SISL with PAN: AAACS9788E, which was later name changed to M/s. Siemens Technology and Services Pvt. Ltd., [STSPL] w.e.f 23.04.2012. 12. We also noticed that by letter dated 26.12.2012 the then Assessing Officer ACIT, Circle-12(3), Bangalore intimated the Assessing Officer of STSPL i.e. ACIT, Circle-7(2), Mumbai that consequent to merger of SIPSPL with STSPL by virtue of the order of the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court dated 30.09.2011 the assessment records are forwarded to A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arshall Sons and Co. vs. Income Tax Officer (1992) 195 ITR 417. 5. The assessee contends that no question of law arises for consideration. It submits that the text and phraseology of Sections 170 (1) and (2) do not support the revenue's arguments. The assessee further relies on Saraswati Industrial Syndicate v. CIT, 1990 Supl. (1) SCR 332 in support of its contentions and the findings of the tax authorities below, i.e. the CIT (A) and the ITAT. Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs. CIT - ITA No.475 of 2011, decided by a Division Bench of this Court, as well as an earlier decision in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt. Ltd. ITA No. 273/2009 were relied on by the assessee as well, in support of its contentions. It was also pointed out that the jurisdictional defect in this case could not be cured under Section 292-B of the Act. 6. Sections 170(1) and 170(2) of the Act do not assist the revenue in their case. The revenue does not contest that in a case of amalgamation, the predecessor (being a dissolved company) "cannot be found". Consequently, Section 170(2) applies. This provision clarifies that where the predecessor cannot be found, "t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eemed to have carried on its business for and on behalf of the transferee-company and, accordingly, the profits and losses of the transferor- company for the period commencing from the transfer date, shall be deemed to be the profits or losses of the transferee-company and shall be available to the transferee-company for disposal in any manner." 12. That case, however, involved a controversy about the effective date of amalgamation, and not about whether an assessment of income can be made on an amalgamated company. In fact, the logic of the Madras High Court's decision undermines the Appellants' case. The Madras High Court found for the Revenue, because, in its opinion, the effective date of amalgamation came after the date of the assessment. The assessee argued that the date of amalgamation was January 1, 1982, whereas the assessment order was dated November 25, 1984. 13. The Madras High Court held that "according to the records maintained pursuant to the provisions of the Companies Act, the subsidiary company had continued to remain in existence up to January 21, 1986, even long after January 1, 1982." 14. On this basis, it held the Assessee l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e other aspect is as to the applicability of Section 292-B of the Act, which reads as follows: "292B. No return of income assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings furnished or made or issue or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reasons of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceedings is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act." 18. The Revenue argues that the assessment was in substance and effect in conformity with the Act, because the Assessing Officer had used correct nomenclature in writing the name of the Assessee, along with the fact that the company had amalgamated, as well as the correct address of the amalgamated company. Consequently, they contend that "the mere omission, if any on the part of the AO to mention the name of the appellant/amalgamated company in place of M/s Dimension Apparel... [is]... therefore ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... no estoppel in law." Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt. Ltd., (supra) had also reached the same conclusion. 23. It is thus clear that all contentions sought to be urged by the revenue are in respect of familiar grounds, which have been ruled upon, against it, consistently in two decisions of this court. Therefore, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. 24. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeals; they are accordingly dismissed along with the pending applications without any order as to costs." 16. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd., (supra) held as under: "4. This appeal was admitted by order dated 21.07.2010 on the substantial questions of law as had been framed in the memo which reads as under: - (1) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the order passed by the Assessing Officer on M/s Software & Silicon Systems India Pvt. Ltd., after being intimated about the merger with M/s Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd., was without jurisdiction against the said company and null and void? (2) Whether the Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xisting entity/person goes to the root of the matter which is not a procedural irregularity, but, a jurisdictional defect and as there cannot be any assessment against the dead person. 7. In the present case also, the proceedings had been initiated against a non-existing company/SSS Limited even after the amalgamation of the said company with M/s Intel Technology India Pvt. Ltd.. We do not see any good ground to differ with the said judgment of the Delhi High Court. 8. Accordingly, for the reasons given in the judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra], these appeals are dismissed and we decide the substantial questions of law in favour of the assessee and against the revenue." 17. In the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT in ITA. No. 475 & 476 of 2011 dated 03.08.2011 the Hon'ble Delhi High Court held as under: "12. Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act. Section 292B of the Act reads as under:- "292B. No return of income asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act do not authorize the AO to ignore a defect of a substantive nature and it is, therefore, that the aforesaid provision categorically records that a return would not be treated as invalid, if the same "in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act". Insofar as the return under reference is concerned, in terms of Section 140 of the 1961 Act, the same cannot be treated to be even a return filed by the respondent assessee, as the same does not even bear her signatures and had not even been verified by her. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept that the return allegedly filed by the assessee was in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the basis of Section 292B of the 1961 Act. The return under reference, which had been taken into consideration by the Revenue, was an absolutely invalid return as it had a glaring inherent ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e assessments made for AY 2012-13. In this case M/s Xenial Investments Pvt. Ltd., the original assessee filed a return of income on 01.11.2004 under Section 115JB of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The original assessment was completed but the matter was remitted on two occasions. In the third round, in reply to notice, the assessee had indicated that it underwent an entity change inasmuch as merger and amalgamation had been approved by the Court vide order dated 10.10.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012. Apparently, the AO took note of this development but instead of completing the assessment in the hands and in the name of the amalgamated or merged entity, i.e., Adhunik Technology Pvt. Ltd., it proceeded to complete the separate assessment in the name of the (by then) non-existent entity, i.e., M/s Xenial Investments Pvt. Ltd. Applying the ratio of the decision of this Court in Spice Entertainment v. CIT [IT Appeal No. 475 of 2011] and CIT v. Dimension Apparel (P., Ltd. [20141 52 taxmann.com 356/[2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi), the ITAT upheld the CIT (A)'s decision and held that the assessment was a nullity. 2. The revenue urges in support of its appeal that the distinguishing feature of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oving the Scheme of Amalgamation ('Scheme') by which SPIL (Amalgamating Company) was amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. ('MSIL') (Amalgamated Company) with effect from 1st April 2012 (the 'appointed date'). The Scheme inter alia provided that, "all the liabilities and duties on the entire undertaking of the Petitioner/Amalgamating Company be transferred without further act or deed to the Petitioner/Amalgamated Company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities of the Petitioner/Amalgamated Company." 6. Thereafter, assessment proceedings continued with the participation of ITA 65/2017 Page 3 of 8 MSIL representing SPIL in the assessment proceedings. 7. On 29th December 2015, the AO passed the assessment order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144C (1) of the Act in which the name and address of the Assessee was shown as: "M/s. Suzuki Powertrain India Ltd (Amalgamated with M/s Maruti Suzuki India Ltd)., Plot No 1, Nelson Mandela Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110070" 8. MSIL filed an appeal before the ITAT where one of the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as also urged by the Revenue that since the amalgamated entity had participated in the assessment proceedings without raising any objection, it should be precluded from raising it thereafter. 11.2 The two questions framed by this Court in Spice Infotainment (supra) were as under: "(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the action of the Assessing Officer in framing assessment in the name of "Spice Corp Ltd", after the said entity stood dissolved consequent upon its amalgamation with Mcorp Private Limited w.e.f. 01.07.2003, was a mere "procedural defect"? (ii) whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that in view of the provisions of section 292B of the Act, the assessment, having in substance and effect, been framed on the amalgamated company which could not be regarded as null and void?" 11.3 This Court, in Spice Infotainment (supra) discussed and noted the following observations in the decision of the Supreme Court in Saraswati Industrial Syndicate (supra): "Generally, where only one Company is involved in change and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....repeatedly brought the said issue before this Court in a large number of cases where, in more or less identical circumstances, the AO had passed the assessment order in the name of the entity that had ceased to exist as on the date of the assessment order. In many of these cases, as in the present case, the AO, after mentioning the name of the Amalgamating Company as the Assessee, mentioned below it the name of the Amalgamated Company. Illustratively the cases are: (i) CIT v Micra India (P) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 809 (Del); (ii) CIT v. Micron Steels (P) Ltd. [2015] 372 ITR 386 (Del) (iii) CIT v. Dimensions Apparels (P) Ltd. [2015] 370 ITR 288 (Del) (iv) BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. ACIT (Decision dated 26th July 2017 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2712 of 2016 13. The question whether, for the purposes of Section 170 (2) of the Act, the defect of passing the assessment order in the name of an non-existent entity is a mere irregularity was answered by this Court in CIT v. Dimensions Apparels (P) Ltd. (supra), where in paras 6 and 7 it was held as under: "6. Sections 170(1) and 170(2) of the Act do not assist the revenue in their case. The revenue doe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....(supra) on which the Ld.DR relied on, held as under: "17 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that: (i) The High Court was not justified in quashing the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) only on the ground that the assessment was framed in the name of the amalgamating company, which was not in existence, ignoring the fact that the names of both the amalgamated company and the amalgamating company were mentioned in the assessment order; (ii) Even on the hypothesis that the assessment order was framed incorrectly in the name of the amalgamating company, it would amount to a "mistake, defect or omission" which is curable under Section 292B when the assessment is, "in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose" of the Act; (iii) During the assessment proceedings and the subsequent proceedings in appeal, the amalgamating company was duly represented by the amalgamated company. No prejudice was caused to any of the parties by the assessment order and hence rendering the assessment order invalid on a 'mere technicality' would be incorrect in law. There was effect....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 148 was a procedural defect or mistake curable under Section 292B, since no prejudice was caused to the assessee. The Delhi High Court distinguished the decision in Spice Entertainment on the ground that in that case even the final assessment order was in the name of a non-existent company; (vii) In the present case, both the draft assessment order and the final assessment order contained the names of the amalgamated and amalgamating companies and hence it cannot be held that the final order is in the name of a non-existent company. The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum. The directions of the TPO were implemented by the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance wi Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before the DRP under Section 144C(2). Since the names of both the amalgamated and amalgamating companies were mentioned in the draft assessment order and final assessment order, there is no jurisdictional defect; (viii) In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala ("Kunhayammed"), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petiti....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eld in the following decisions: - BDR Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd. v ACIT - Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Ltd. v DCIT - Khurana Engineering Ltd. v DCIT - Takshashila Realties (P) Ltd. v DCIT - Alamelu Veerappan v ITO23 ("Alamelu Veerappan") (iv) The order passed by the TPO in the name of SPIL, a non-existent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law: * SPIL ceased to be an "eligible assessee", in terms of section 144C (15) (b) of the Act. Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order/reference to DRP etc.; and * Furthermore, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 is beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act. (v) The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: * In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date has to be in the name of the amalgamated company as successor in interest of the amalgamating company. * The Delhi High Court has held in Spice Entertainment th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he reasons to believe and approval of the Principal Commissioner (before issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act). However, only because of a clerical mistake, the notice was wrongly issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. * In the aforesaid facts, the High Court held that this was an irregularity and procedural/ technical lapse which was curable under section 292B of the Act. * The decision in the case of Spice Enfotainment was not followed on the ground that it pertained to the passing of an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity whereas the case at hand dealt with a notice under Section 148 of the Act. * The SLP filed by the assessee against the decision of the Delhi High Court was dismissed recording: "In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of Act 1961"; * Subsequently, various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court have in the following decisions distinguished the judgment in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP and have quashed the notice/ass....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....any or one is absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity." (iv) Fourthly, upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed; (v) Fifthly, a notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 26 September 2013 to the amalgamating company, SPIL, which was followed by a notice to it under Section 142(1); (vi) Sixthly, prior to the date on which the jurisdictional notice under Section 143 (2) was issued, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved on 29 January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012; (vii) Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2). The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact of amalgamation. In the above conspectus of the facts, the initiation of assessm....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....uashing of an assessment order dated 31 December 2010. The Respondent had amalgamated with another company and thus, ceased to exist from 7 December 2009. The Court rejected the argument of the Revenue that the assessment was in substance and effect in conformity with the Act by reason of the fact that the assessing officer had used correct nomenclature in addressing the Assessee; stated the fact that the company had amalgamated and mentioned the correct address of the amalgamated company. It was the Revenue's contention that the omission on the part of the assessing officer to mention the name of the amalgamated company is a procedural defect. The Delhi High Court rejected this contention. In doing so, it relied on the holding in Spice Entertainment, where the High Court expressly clarified that "the framing of assessment against a non-existing entity/person" is a jurisdictional defect. The Division Bench also relied on the holding in Spice Entertainment that participation by the amalgamated company in proceedings does not cure the defect as "there can be no estoppel in law", to affirm the quashing of the assessment order. 22 In Micron Steels, a notice was issued to Micro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 6 Delhi. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Hon'ble Ms Justice Indu Malhotra on 16 July 2018 in view of the order dated 2 November 2017 governing Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 in Spice Enfotainment and the connected batch of cases. Though, leave was not granted by this Court, reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the Special Leave Petition. The law declared would attract the applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution. For, as this Court has held in Kunhayammed: "40 Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is, where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal. The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply. But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s 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 PAN number of the LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents. The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in this background that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview of Section 292B for the following reasons: "18. There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11.04.2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nder 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. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292B. Thus, there is no conflict ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on in respect of the income of such business or profession for the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession or for the previous year preceding that year, assesseed on the predecessor, cannot be recovered from him, the 99[Assessing] Officer shall record a finding to that effect and the sum payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and recoverable from the successor and the successor shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid. (4) Where any business or profession carried on by a Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and simultaneously with the succession or after the succession there has been a partition of the joint family property between the members or groups of members, the tax due in respect of the income of the business or profession succeeded to, up to the date of succession, shall be assesseed and recovered in the manner provided in section 171, but without prejudice to the provisions of this section. Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, "income" includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession" Now....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....not to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments were illegal. The Bombay High Court held that the successor Maharaja was a legal representative of the deceased and while it would have been better to so describe him in the notice, the notice was not bad merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity. Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a distinct substantive provision. The omission or defect may render the order irregular but not void or illegal. Jai Prakash Singh and the two decisions that it placed reliance upon were evidently based upon the specific facts. Jai Prakash Singh involved a situation where the return of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom notices were issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2). No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served to other legal representatives of the deceased assessee. No object....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ple that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that participation in the proceedings by the assessee in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. It was also held that this position holds the field in view of their judgment in the case of Spice Enotainment delivered on 02.11.2017. 24. In the case on hand it is undoubtedly the assessment was made by the Assessing Officer on SIPSPL the amalgamating company which was amalgamated with STSPL w.e.f 01.10.2011 and accordingly ceased to exist thereafter. Therefore, when the assessment was made on an non existing entity the said assessment is void ab-initio and nullity in the eye of law. Assessment framed against a non-existing entity goes to the root of the matter and it is not a procedural irregularity but a jurisdictional defect and there cannot be any assessment against a non-existing entity or a dead person. Therefore, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Pr.CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) squarely applies to the facts of the assessee's case. Respectfully following the decision of the Hon'ble ....