TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1232
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....in the business of repairs and refurbishment of turbo machinery and related auxiliary parts and activities relating to erection and commissioning of the same. MTIPL merged into MAN INDIA by way of amalgamation w.e.f. 1-1-2013 pursuant to Hon'ble Bombay High Court order dated 28.3.2014 approving the scheme of amalgamation. The assets and liabilities of MTIPL were transferred and vested in MAN India with effect from 01-01-2013. MTIPL originally filed return of income for the 12 month period ending 31-03-2013, on 29-11-2013, declaring an income of Rs. 16.28 crores. Subsequently, the return was revised on 31-03-2015, on approval of scheme of amalgamation vide court order dated 28-03-14, and the income declared for nine months upto 31-12-2012 as the amalgamation was effective from 01-01-2013, of Rs. 11.04 crores. The same was scrutinized in terms of provisions of section 143(3) of the Act and various additions made to the income of the assessee on account of following: i) Disallowance relating to the provisions of expenses of Rs. 95,47,837/ -; ii) Disallowance relating to the excess material consumed of Rs. 1,95,45,952/ -; iii And disallowance under sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the case, and in law, the Learned Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as Id. AO'] has erred in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 in the name of Man Turbo India Private Limited, an entity that was not in existence on the date of issue of impugned notice due to its amalgamation with the Appellant and Ld. AO has also erred in passing impugned assessment order in the name of non- existing entity The Appellant prays that the notice and order passed in the name of a non- existing person are bad in law, null and void-ab-initio, and accordingly be deserved to be quashed. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute or withdraw all or any of the Grounds of Appeal. 7. It was contended that the grounds are crucial for deciding the case on hand, and being legal ground, and the law being well-settled that legal grounds can be raised at any time, as per the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), he pleaded admission of the additional grounds for adjudication. On the other hand, the ld.DR vehemently objected to the admission of the additional grounds.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2016 Refer page no. 5 of Paper Book [refer page no. 1 of AO Order] 11. The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that even the contents of the assessment order reveal the fact of the AO being aware during assessment proceedings of the assessee having amalgamated in MAN India and thus no longer existing, since the order repeatedly notes the fact of amalgamation of the assessee company MTIPL into MAN-INDIA, noting also the fact that the assessee having furnished the return for the income for the period of only 9 months when it was in existence upto 31-12-2012. 12. The ld.DR per contra filed his contentions against this plea of the assessee in writing, stating that, returns and books of accounts were all filed in the name of MTIPL, assessee participated in assessment proceedings and no challenge as to the assumption of jurisdiction by the AO in the name of MTIPL was ever raised by the assessee. That therefore by virtue of the provisions of section 124(3)(a), the assessee was now debarred from raising any objection to the jurisdiction assumed by the AO in the present case . In this regard he referred to the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Bhupendra ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he issue, the same was confronted to both the parties during the course of hearing. To which, the ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that the decision did not over-rule the earlier decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), but in fact taking note of the said decision, in Mahagun Realtors P.Ltd.(supra) the Hon'ble apex court had distinguished the facts in the case before it, and thereafter taken a contrary view as opposed to that taken in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra). The ld.counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Apex Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors (Supra) noted that the assessee had not intimated the department of the fact of amalgamation, and therefore, noting that in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra), the assessee had intimated the fact of amalgamation to the AO, the Hon'ble Apex Court went on to take a contrary view in the case of Mahagun Realtors P.Ltd. Our attention was also drawn to various decisions of the jurisdictional High Court wherein the decision of the Apex court in Mahagun Realtors(supra) was distinguished on the ground that intimation of amalgamation was made to the assessing off....