AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 1302
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....The first and foremost common issue raised in all these 7 appeals, is as regards to the assessment framed u/s. 153A of the Act is bad in law, for the reasons that assessments were framed on the nonexistent entities. Since the appeals are inter-connected, therefore, we are dealing with the facts of ITA No. 3626/Del/2018 (AY 2012-13). For this, both the assessees has raised the following common ground in their respective 7 appeals:- "That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of the AO in assuming jurisdiction and issuing of notice u/s. 153A of the Act, more so when the notice was issued in the name of non-existing entity and that too without giving ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d read with 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 27.3.2015 despite the aforesaid objection. Aggrieved, assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) held as under:- "Ground No. 2 & 3:- are challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by Assessing Officer to complete the assessment u/s. 153A(1)(b) and non issue of notice u/s. 143(2). It is seen from the facts of the case that the search in SRS group to which the appellant belongs was held on 09.05.2012. Thereafter a survey u/s. 133A was carried out at the business premises of the appellant Annexure A-9 being hard disc and FDRs as per A-2, A-5 and A-11 were seized from appellant's premises. Thereafter, notice u/s. 153A(1)(a) was issued to appellant to file ROI and notice....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he appellant on 10.09.2013 has been verified as being BTL Industries Ltd. Therefore, the ground taken by appellant challenging the completion of assessment u/s. 153A(1)(b) on a merged company and non issue of notice u/s. 143(2), is baseless and the assumption jurisdiction of Assessing Officer is correct and regular. The grounds are therefore dismissed." 4. Ld. Counsel for the assessee first of all, drew our attention towards the order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court dated 16.03.2012 passed in CO.PET.519/2011 in the matter of M/s BTL Impex (India) limited and Ors. relating to approving the Scheme of Amalgamation of BTL Impex (India) Limited, SRS Buildicon Private Limited, SRS International Limited, BTL Industries Limited and many....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly under any law." 5. Further, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the Scheme placed before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and wherein, meaning of Appointed Date has been explained as under:- 3. "Appointed Date" means 1st September, 2011 (or such other date as the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi) from which date all the movable, immovable and other properties, of whatsoever nature and description of the respective Transferor Companies shall be transferred or deserved to be transferred and vested with the Transferee Company, without any further act, or deed on its part, "Business and / or undertaking of Transferor Companies" means and includes..." 5.1 The aforesaid fact has been acknowledged by the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dgement of CIT vs. Sony Mobile Communication Ind Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with Sony India Pvt. Ltd.), ITA 115/2019 dated 2.2.2023 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. He also relied upon the decision of M/s Ahead Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT, ITA No. 2567/2017 for AY 2010-11, dated 09.09.2020 (Del.); M/s Ahead Enterprises Ltd. vs. DCIT ITA Nos. 734207345/2017 for AY 2008-09 to 2012-13 dated 06.01.2021 (Del) and decision in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 0613 (SC). 6.1 Ld. CIT(DR) in view of the aforesaid settled position, could not controvert the above said proposition made by the Ld. AR. 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. We find that in terms of the above factual matrix, now the issue is c....