TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 20X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... effect and to be effective for the assessment year 2000-01 and the striking off the name of the assessee Company from the Register of Companies on 25.05.2007, can in no manner impact the said assessment. More the question would be whether the Tribunal committed an error in permitting the assessee to raise such a ground for the first time before the Tribunal, especially when it is a factual issue which the assessee never raised before the Assessing Officer in the reassessment proceedings or before the CIT(Appeals) and sought to raise it before the Tribunal for the first time stating that it goes to the root of the matter. We do not agree with the reasoning of the Tribunal in this regard. If the assessee had failed to raise the factual iss ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras 'C' Bench in I.T.A.Nos.473/Mds/2010 and I.T.A.No.549/Mds/2010 for the assessment year 2000-01 and the following substantial question of law raised for consideration in these appeals: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding back to the file of AO for investigation as to whether the company was in existence at the relevant time by holding that the assessment order passed was nullity? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was right in remanding the issue back to AO without considering the provisions of Section 176(1) to 176(7) of the I.T.Act which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the order passed by the Tribunal was called in question by the Revenue. In this question, we have elaborately heard Mr.M.Swaminathan, learned Senior Standing Counsel and Ms.S.Premalatha, learned junior standing counsel for the appellant / Revenue and Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/assessee. The assessee for the very first time raised a new ground before the Tribunal stating that the assessment itself was bad in law and nullity, since the name of the assessee Company was struck off from the Register of Companies, even before the Assessment Order was passed. The Tribunal permitted the assessee to raise the ground as a additional ground stating that it goes to the very root of the matter. 4. After considering ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the Assessment Order having been passed on 31.12.2007, is a nullity because the Company became non existent on and after 25.05.2007. 7. In support of his contention, Mr.G.Baskar, learned counsel for the respondent / assessee referred to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (2019 (416) ITR 0613 [SC]) . The said decision was relied on to support the contention that framing of an assessment against the non existing entities / persons is a jurisdictional defect and the Assessment Order is liable to be quashed. 8. Admittedly the assessment year is 2000-01, when the assessee Company was carrying on business. It is not in dispute th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny ceased to exist as a result of an approved scheme of amalgamation, making an assessment in the name of non existing Company would render assessment invalid. While the facts of the present case as mentioned above are totally different, it cannot be applied to the case on hand. As mentioned earlier, the assessment is for the year 2000-01 which was reopened and striking off the name of the assessee Company from the Register of Companies occurred only on 21.05.2007, can in no manner impact the assessment for the year 2000-01. 10. The decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Impsat Private Limited Vs. ITO, which has been referred to by the Tribunal in the Impugned Order pertains to a case where the Assessment Order wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d be, the relevant time would be when the Company was in existence during the assessment year 2000-01, that alone would be the relevant time and the relevant year for the assessee's case. For the sake of arguments, if we are to accept the stand taken by the Tribunal to be correct, that this issue goes to the root of the matter, the Tribunal erred in not considering the provisions of Section 176 of the Act and without deciding the said issue, the question of remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer does not arise and consequently the Tribunal committed an error of law on that aspect. 12. For all the above reasons, these Tax Case Appeals are allowed and the Substantial Questions of Law is answered in favour of the Revenue. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
