TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [in short, "Tribunal"]. 3. The Tribunal, via the impugned order, disposed of the appeal preferred by the revenue and the cross-objections filed by the respondent/assessee, against the order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the CIT(A), concerning the assessment order dated 28.02.2014 passed under Section 147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short, "the Act"]. 4. We have heard counsel for the parties at some length. Our attention has been drawn by Mr Ved Jain, learned counsel, who appears on behalf of the respondent/assessee, to the order dated 05.01.2023 passed by the Court in ITA 452/2022 passed by this court. 4.1 A careful perusal of the said order shows that we had etched out the broad controversy a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to M/s. Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Despite this information, the AO has proceeded to pass the assessment order in the name of non-existent company on 28.02.2014. The Tribunal in assessee's own case for AY 2005-06 (supra) have quashed assessment passed in the name of erstwhile company after observing and holding as under :- "12. We have gone through the various judgments on the issue of passing of assessment order on a non-existing entity. 13. We find that the assessee has duly discharged his duties about the issue of merger of the assessee company. The Assessing Officer has quite aware of the issue of merger but still choose to issue notice u/s 148 and complete the assessment in the case of the assessee, which is no....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Tribunal's order also shows that this very mistake was noticed by it, with regard to the earlier Assessment Year (AY) i.e., AY 2005-06. 4. Mr Sanjay Kumar, who appears on behalf of the appellant/revenue, informs us that the appeal against the said order passed by the Tribunal concerning AY 2005-06, was not preferred as the tax impact was less than the prescribed monetary threshold. 4.1. Mr Kumar, in support of his plea that the Tribunal had erred in law relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in PCIT v. Mahagun Realton (P.) Ltd. (2022) SCO OnLine SO 407. 5. The Tribunal, on the other hand, in the ease of the assessee concerning AY 2005-06, relied upon its own decision in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 72 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 coordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Entertainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Entertainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Entertainment. 40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ot in contention. The respondent has relied upon Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) to contend that the notice issued in the name of the amalgamating company is void and illegal. The facts of present case, however, can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki on the following bases. 36. Firstly, in both the relied upon cases, the assessee had duly informed the authorities about the merger of companies and vet the assessment order was passed in the name of amalgamating/non-existent company. However, in the present case, for AY 2006-2007, there was no intimation by the assessee regarding amalgamation of the company. The ROI for the AY 2006-2007 first filed by the respondent on 30.06.2006 was in the name of MRPL. MRPL a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6. The facts recorded by the Tribunal, prima facie, seem to fit into those which were noticed in Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd. vis-a-vis Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. which, inter alia, were that the AO was informed about the fact that the transferor company i.e., Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. had ceased to exist, and despite such information being given, he proceeded to frame an assessment order against Anirudh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. 7. Given this position, presently, we are of the view that the appeal cannot be sustained. 8. Since Mr Kumar seeks accommodation to examine the matter further, list the appeal on 14.02.2023." 5. As noted in our order dated 05.01.2023, it is not in dispute that the Assessing Officer (AO) was informed that Anir....