AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (1) TMI 538
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....03.2019 issued by respondent under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("the Act" for short) to reassess the income of Surat Nagrik Sahkari Bank Ltd., which is now merged with the petitioner for the Assessment Year 2012-13, which according to the petitioner, is an act contrary to law. 2 Brief facts leading to the present petition are as follows: 2.1 Petitioner is a Multi-State Scheduled Cooperative Bank, whose members are individuals and citizens. One Surat Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited had amalgamated with the petitioner on 01.07.2013. The respondent had been intimated of the said amalgamation with Surat Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited vide its communications dated 23.08.2013 and 05.11.2014. Thereafter, the orders passed by the Regist....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y implementation and operation of the notice at Annexure-'A' to this petition and stay further proceedings for the A.Y.2012-13; c. any other and further relief deemed just and proper be granted in the interest of justice; d. to provide for the cost of this petition." 3 Affidavit-in-reply is filed denying all allegations. According to the respondent, the information for escapement of income by Surat Nagrik Sahkari Bank Limited for the Financial Year 2012-13 is already with the respondent. The jurisdictional issue that the name of non-existing company i.e amalgamating company ceased to exist is bad in law. It is submitted that all future proceedings shall be conducted in the name of existing entity, namely, the Mehsana Ur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd, [2019]107 taxmann.com 375, where it has been held that the amalgamating entity would cease to exist against the approved scheme of amalgamation. In Gayatri Microns ltd. vs. Asstt. CIT, [2020] 114 taxmann.com 318, this Court had followed the Apex Court's decision of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) to hold that the jurisdictional notice issued in the name of the company, which has been amalgamated is illegal and without jurisdiction, since the amalgamating entity ceases to exist and cannot be regarded as person under sub-section (31) of section 2 of the Act against whom the assessment proceedings can be initiated. Relevant paragraphs are reproduced as under: ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), in paragraph 33, has categorically held that if the company has ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation then in that case, the jurisdictional notice issued in its name would be fundamentally illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also held that upon the amalgamating entity ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under subsection (31) of section 2 of the Act; against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated. The Apex Court has further held that participation by the amalgamated company in the proceedings would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. 10. Similarly, this court, in the judgmen....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tice has been issued to the company viz. Billfinger Bilfinger Plant Equipment Pvt. Ltd which is already merged with the present petitioner. 11.We are in agreement with the submissions made by learned advocate for the petitioner. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd (supra) and in case of Gayatri Microns Ltd vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (supra) is applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the fact that now the notice has already been issued to the present petitioner-company under section 148 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years involved in the present group of petitions. 12.Accordingly, w....