TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 1103X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 to 570/Del/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-2-2013 - SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL AND SHRI I.C.SUDHIR, JJ. For the Appellant: Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT-DR For the Respondent : Shri Kapil Goel, Advocate ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals are filed by the Revenue against the order of learned CIT(A)-II, Delhi dated 24th November, 2011 for the AY 2003-04 to 2008-09. 2. Identical grounds have been raised by the Revenue in all these six years. 3. Ground No.1 of the Revenue s appeals reads as under:- That the ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts of the case in upholding that assessment on a company which has been dissolved/amalgamated under section 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 is invalid. 4. The facts of the case are that there was search and seizure action under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of Shri B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and M/s Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt.Ltd. on 20th October, 2008. During the course of search, certain documents belonging to the assessee were seized. On the basis of the documents so found, proceedings were initiated in the case of the assessee company under Section 153C for all the six assessment years under considerat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cipated in the assessment proceedings. I have also carefully pursued the following case laws:- a) Impsat (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITAT, Delhi A Bench ITA No.1430/Del/2004 dated 28.07.2004; 2005 TTJ (Del) 552 : (2004) 91 ITD 354 (Del).; b) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt.Ltd. ITA No.273/2009; c) CIT Vs. Express Newspapers Ltd., (1960) 40 ITR 38 (MAD) : (1960) Tax 13(3)-282; d) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff, (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) (e) I K Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kol-III, Judgement dated 11th March 2011. (f) Triveni Engineering Industries Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT Delhi WT Bench, (2005) 93 TTJ (Del) 806 : (2005) 93 ITD 561; (g) Century Enka Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of on 14 February, 2006 : 2006 101 ITD 489 Mum, 2008 303 ITR 1 Mum; (h) Pampasar Distillery Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT, Kolkata E Bench, (2007) 15 SOT 331 (Kol); (i) Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 1973 CTR (SC) 454; (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC); (j) Spice Entertainment Limited Vs. CIT ITA 475 476 of 2011. The gist o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cases of a) Impsat (P) Ltd. Vs. Income Tax Officer, ITAT, Delhi A Bench ITA No.1430/Del/2004 dated 28.07.2004; 2005 TTJ (Del) 552 : (2004) 91 ITD 354 (Del) and b) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Vived Marketing Servicing Pvt.Ltd. ITA No.273/2009 by the Hon ble Delhi High Court are squarely applicable to the present facts of the case. The appellant company stood on 28.05.2010 on amalgamated with M/s Sanskar Projects Housing Limited. In view of above, I accept the contention of the appellant company and hold that the assessment order passed on the appellant company is a nullity. Therefore, this ground of appeal is decided in favour of the appellant. 5. The Revenue, aggrieved with the order of learned CIT(A), is in appeal before us. At the time of hearing before us, it is stated by the learned CIT-DR that in response to notice under Section 153C, the assessee filed the return of income and also participated in the assessment proceedings, therefore, now the assessee cannot challenge that the assessment made in its hands is nullity and void ab initio. He, therefore, submitted that the order of learned CIT(A) on this point should be reversed and the assessment order should be uphe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 1956 is invalid. Admittedly, the assessee company in the present case stood dissolved on 22.12.2009 on amalgamation with M/s Dynamic Buildmart Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment order in the present case has been framed on 31.12.2010. The first appellate order on the issue is thus upheld. The ground no.4 is accordingly rejected. 10. That the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has also considered the identical issue in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and held as under:- 11. After the sanction of the scheme on 11th April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exist w.e.f. 1st July, 2003. Even if Spice had filed the returns, it became incumbent upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said dead person. When notice under Section 143(2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing ITA 475/2011 ITA-476/2011 Page 9 of 13 Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings and assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
