AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (11) TMI 495
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mmon and the appeals are connected, hence the same are heard together and being disposed off by this common order. 3. Both the assessee and Revenue has raised several grounds of appeal against the order of ld. CIT (A)-4, New Delhi, however at the time of hearing, ld.AR for the assessee submitted that ground no.1 raised by the assessee is a legal issue and the ld. CIT (A) has upheld the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer disregarding the fact that the same was passed on non-existing entity. Therefore, it is bad in law and void ab initio. In this regard, he brought to our notice page 1 of the assessment order wherein the assessment order was passed mentioning the name of the assessee as Genpact India (now merged with Genpact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r was passed on 27.12.2017. In this regard, he brought to our notice page 11 & 12 of the first appellate order wherein ld. CIT (A) has considered the issue raised by the assessee and held that once the assessment notice was issued, the assessee had represented the case through its duly Authorised Representative and filed various submissions without objecting the issue raised in the current appeal. The case was effectively and actively participated during the course of assessment proceedings. Further, he brought to our notice that during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee has not even communicated in writing to Assessing Officer the fact that assessee is merged with other company. He further brought to our notice that ld. CIT (A)....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to our notice page 184 of the paper book to submit that Hon'ble Supreme Court has relied on the decision of previous assessment order to decide similar issue in AY 2012-13. Ld. AR further submitted that the case of Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (supra) relied upon by the ld. DR is distinguishable for the simple reason that in the above case, there was a specific finding that assessee has tried to misguide the authorities below. 6. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The issue raised by the assessee in ground no.1 is exactly similar to the issues considered by the coordinate Bench in assessee's own case in ITA No.583/Del/2020 for AY 2014-15 (supra) and the Bench held as under :- "7. We have heard both the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....malgamation Order as sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh along with copies of PAN of Genpact India and detail of the jurisdictional Assessing Officers was placed by the assessee before the Revenue authorities. The reliance upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (Supra) by the Ld. AR is apt in the present case. The Hon'ble Supreme Court observed in para 19 as follows: "19. ........................ (iii) Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist. In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd., the principle has b....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mating 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....