TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (5) TMI 254
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....14. 2. The assessee has raised the following additional ground : " On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in passing assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 10 November 2017 on a non- existing entity, i.e. Lear Oragadam Automotive India Private Limited which has been merged into Lear Automotive India Private Limited with effect from 1 April 2016 vide order of Hon'ble National Company Law Tribunal dated 1 March, 2017. The Appellant prays that the assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity, be held as bad in law, illegal and without any jurisdiction and therefore liable to be quashed." 3. Since the additional ground involves a pure legal issue and that ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....OAI got amalgamated with LAIP in the Scheme of amalgamation which was duly approved by order dated 01-03-2017 of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) effective from 01-04-2016. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee duly intimated the change in its status to the AO/DRP and despite that the final order of the AO as well as the directions issued by the DRP were in wrong name. In support of his contention, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Private Limited (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC). 6. Au contraire, the ld. DR refuted the contention by submitting that the return was filed by the assessee in its old name, namely, LOAI; a letter dt. 19-04-2017 was addressed to the Secretariat DRP on le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the AO vide letter dated 27-10-2017. However, the final assessment order dated 10-11-2017 came to be passed by the AO in the name of `M/s Lear Oragadam Automotive India Private Limited (Formerly known as Tacle Automotive India Private Limited)'. This shows that despite the assessee specifically pointing out the fact of its amalgamation into LAIP vide its letter dated 27-10-2017, the AO chose to pass the final assessment order in the name of the non-existing amalgamating company `M/s Lear Oragadam Automotive India Private Limited (Formerly known as Tacle Automotive India Private Limited)'. In this backdrop of facts, we need to examine if the action of the AO in passing the final order is in accordance with law? 8. The facts of Maruti Suzuki....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by the ld. DR, are that Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.(MRPL) got amalgamated with Mahagun India Private Limited (MIPL) by virtue of an order dated 10-09-2007 of Hon'ble High Court effective from 01- 04-2006. After a search and seizure action, the assessee filed its return on 28-05-2010 describing itself as MRPL. The assessment order was also passed in the old name MRPL as represented by MIPL. The Tribunal quashed the assessment order by accepting the assessee's plea that no order could have been passed in the name of MRPL, a non-existent entity. The Hon'ble High Court also accorded its imprimatur to the Tribunal's view. The Hon'ble Supreme Court accepted the view-point of the Revenue and held the assessment order passed in the name of MRPL repr....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... ought to have been passed in the name of the amalgamated company, thereby bringing the case within the purview of Mahagun (SC). This indicates that the ratio decidendi laid down in Maruti (SC) is a rule and that in Mahagun (SC) an exception. The corollary which, ergo, follows is that the proposition that assessment order passed in the name of the amalgamating company after amalgamation is void, applies to all the cases except where the assessee hides the fact of amalgamation from the AO. 11. Now we turn to the argument of the ld. DR that the assessee in its letters depicted the name of amalgamating company prior to that of the amalgamated company and hence lost its right to claim the quashing of the assessment order on the ground of wrong....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee in the name of the amalgamating company as the scheme of amalgamation was not approved till then. As soon as the amalgamation got approved by the NCLT on 1.3.2017, the assessee intimated this fact to the AO on 11.4.2017 in the assessment proceedings for the A.Y. 2017-18 and on 27.10.2017 in the proceedings for the year under consideration. Even though the assessee, in its letters addressed to the AO/DRP, represented itself as LOAI (amalgamating company) now merged with LAIP (amalgamated company), but the factum of amalgamation was duly brought to the notice of the authorities. Despite that, the assessment order was passed thereafter on 10.11.2017 in the name of the `amalgamating company (formerly known as erstwhile name o....