AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (2) TMI 1750
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in quashing the assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in the case of M/s Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt Ltd, predecessor to successor M/s Cisco Systems (India) Pvt Ltd. The order passed by the CIT(A) is opposed to the ratio laid down in the Hon'ble Supreme Court judgement in the case of PC.IT(Central) v. Mahagdn Realtors (P) Ltd, [2022 SCC Online SC 407]." 3. The only effective issue raised by the revenue is that the learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the assessment order on the reasoning that the order was passed in the name of non-existing company. 4. The facts in brief are that the assessee, namely Scientific Atlanta India Technology Pvt Ltd. (hereafter SA India) merged with Cisco Systems....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....porate circle-6(1) Chennai i.e. Jurisdictional AO (JAO) dated 31st March 2021. The assessee failed to make reply to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and under section 142(1) of the Act issued by the JAO. 4.2 Subsequently vide order sheet date 8th December 2021 the case was transferred from JAO to Faceless assessment center. The NFAC also issued several notices under section 142(1) of the Act which were not replied. Thus, the NFAC finally framed assessment order under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act dated 25th March 2022 in the name of SA India which was not in existent in relevant assessment year i.e. 2014-15. 4.3 The successor assessee (Cisco India) preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appellate Center Del....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ut jurisdiction and bad in law. In the event of amalgamation of companies: a. The income of the amalgamating company up to the date of amalgamation should be assessed in the hands of the amalgamating company (predecessor) if the amalgamating company is in existence at the time of initiation of assessment. b. If the amalgamating company is not in existence at the time of initiation of assessment proceedings, the income of the amalgamating company up to the date of amalgamation should be assessed in the hands of the amalgamated company (successor) under the caption "successor of predecessor" in a similar manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor. The consequence of the above position of law ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....by ACIT, Corporate Circle 1(2) Chennai, in the name of CHIPL for scrutiny assessment proceedings. The assessee informed the assessing officer (AO) about the merger vide letter dated 26/12/2017, filed in the name of CHIPL. The ITAT Mumbai held that the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. is not applicable to the facts of the assessee's case. However, the facts of the case were found to be covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Consequently, the entire assessment order passed in the name of the nonexisting entity was deemed null and void, and hence, quashed. 4.7 Considering the facts of the case of the assessee wherein the assessment ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....therefore the assessment made qua the non-existing company is bad in law. 7.1 Both the learned DR and the AR before us vehemently supported the order of the authorities below as favourable to them. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Regarding the legality of the order framed by the AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 the Act, we note that the AO on the first page of his order has mentioned the name of the assessee SA India which was erstwhile company. Thus, the assessment order was framed in the name of non-existent entity (SA India), as SA India was merged with Cisco India w.e.f. 1st April 2010. This fact has communicated by the successor Cisco India to the office of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d individual. Since a deceased would not be considered as a 'person' under the Act, thus any such notice/order issued in that name will be invalid or void. 8.3 Thus, the JAO at Chennai in the instant case issued notice in the name of non-existent assessee and NAFC framed assessment in the name of the assessee which ceased to exist despite the fact about the scheme of amalgamation was brought to the notice of the taxing authority at Chennai where jurisdiction of SA India was lied when it was in existence. In other words, the Revenue was aware of the complete fact that the company was no longer in existence, yet the JAO at Chennai issued notice in the name of non-existing assessee and based on such notice, the NFAC also has framed ....