TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (12) TMI 524
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Suzuki India Ltd. reported in (2019) 107 taxmann.com 375 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that an income that was sought to be subjected to the charge of tax for the year was the income of the erstwhile entity prior to amalgamation. Under an approved scheme of amalgamation Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities. The consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved u/s. 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 was that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person u/s. 2(31) against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an assessment order would be passed. Hon'ble Supreme Court has noted that a notice issued u/s. 143(2) was issued to the amalgamating company followed by the notice u/s. 142(1) prior to the scheme of amalgamation being approved, the assessing officer subsequently cannot initiate assessment proceedings against an entity that ceased to exist. Hon'ble Supreme Court in that relevant facts held that a notice issued to a non-existent company would be void-ab-init....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the amalgamating company be transferred to the MSIL and that the SPIL would stand dissolved without winding up. * On April 2, 2013 - the Assessee informed the AO that SPIL has amalgamated with MSIL. * On September 26, 2013 , the AO issued notice u/s.143(2) for AY 2011-12. * On September 4, 2015, the AO issued letters to the Assessee with the following description:- "The Principal Officer M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Limited (Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited)" * On March 11, 2016, the AO passed draft assessment order in the name of SPIL. * On April 12, 2016, the Assessee filed objections against the proposed additions in the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP).The objections were filed by MSIL as successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL. * On October 14, 2016, DRP gave its directions to the AO on the objections to the draft assessment order of the AO. * On October 31, 2016, the AO passed the final order in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL). * The Tribunal by its order dated April 6, 2017, held that the assessment order was invalid on the ground that it was void ab initio having been passed in the name of a non-existe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ble Delhi High Court in case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT reported in (2018) 405 ITR 296 observed as under: "27. The submission however which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP which was affirmed on 6 April 2018 by a two judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr Justice A K Sikri and Hon'ble Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan33. In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6 April 2018 of this Court: "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 the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed. Pending applications stand disposed of." Now, it is evident from the above extract that it was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court indicated its agreement that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error, capable of being corrected under Section 292B. The "peculiar facts" of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the decision of the Delhi High Court Sky....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500.Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of Assessment Order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of nonexisting person and hence void and illegal." 29. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018 in the Special Leave Petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evid....