TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....assessee states that the delay occurred because of change in counsel of the assessee. We find the reasons having sufficient cause and reasonable and condone the delay. Following the decision of the hon'ble Supreme Court's in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) mandating to render substantial justice on merits rather than scuttling a case on technical or procedural grounds like time-bars, we condone the delay. 3. Revenue filed the following grounds of appeal as under: 1. "The learned appellate authority has erred in restricting the scope of reassessment proceedings only to the issues recorded in the reasons for reopening, contrary to the express provisions of Explanation 3 to section 147, which clearly empower the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess any other income chargeable to tax which comes to his notice during the course of reassessment proceedings. 2. The learned appellate authority has failed to appreciate that, during the course of validly initiated reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed unexplained unsecured loans amounting to Rs. 2,95,00,000/- and the assessee failed to discharge the onus cast upon it u....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessee filed its cross objection in the name of Argentium International Pvt Ltd bearing PAN AABCA1148F. The assessee filed a revised Cross Objections in the name of M/s Argentium International Private Limited (PAN: AAFCS2998K), being the successor-in-interest of the erstwhile M/s Argentium International Private Limited (PAN: AABCA1148F). The earlier cross objection was in the name of amalgamating company, which had already ceased to exist pursuant to the approved scheme of amalgamation and the said earlier CO was withdrawn. 6. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee company was involved in Wholesale activities. M/s Argentium International Pvt. Ltd. was earlier known as M/s AKA Impex India Pvt. Ltd. As per the MCA website, the status of the company is shown as 'Amalgamated'. After amalgamation, this company was merged with M/s Shakti Commodities Pvt. Ltd., which is now again known as 'Argentium International Pvt. Ltd.' with a different PAN: AAFCS2998K. The amalgamation was taken on record by the Registrar of Companies (RoC) on 23.02.2018. Thereafter, the amalgamating company, Argentium International Pvt. Ltd., having PAN AABCA1148F, ceased to exist. 7. The Ld. AO in....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on a different account i.e., unsecured loan of Rs 2,95,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. 11. Per contra, the ld DR relied on the orders of AO. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the materials on record. We find that AKA Impex India Private Limited having PAN: AABCA1148F was incorporated on 14.02.1996, was engaged in trading activities. Its name was later changed to Argentium International Private Limited (PAN AABCA1148F). Subsequently, this company, Argentium International Private Limited (PAN AABCA1148F), (the "Amalgamating Company"), was amalgamated with M/s Shakti Commodities Pvt. Ltd having PAN: AAFCS2998K (the "Amalgamated Company") vide NCLT order dated 06.02.2018. The resulting company is now known as Argentium International Private Limited with PAN AAFCS2998K. 13. We find that it is an admitted fact that the ld AO recorded his reasons for reopening on 27.03.2019, in the correct amalgamated company name M/s Argentium International Private Limited, previously known as AKA Impex India Private Limited having PAN: AABCA1148F (Now AAFCS2998K). The approval u/s 151(1) was granted in the name of M/s Argentium International Private Limited but with old PAN ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Court in the case of Skylight Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) has presented pivotal insights into the validity of income tax notices issued to juristic entities undergoing structural transformations. The court held that the procedural lapse in addressing the notice to the dissolved company did not invalidate the notice under Section 292B, provided that the substance and intent of the notice aligned with the Act's purposes. The court emphasized that as long as there was no prejudice or confusion caused to the assessee, technical errors do not suffice to nullify tax proceedings. The SLP filed against this decision of Delhi High Court was dismissed by the hon'ble Supreme Court in Sky Light Hospitality LLP v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2018) 13 SCC 147 dated 06.04.2018 holding that "in the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act. We accordingly hold that the reassessment was made validly on the existent assessee". 16. In the instant case, the proceedings were....