2006 (2) TMI 596 - AT - Income Tax

Validity of assessment order passed in the name of non-existing entity - curable defect within the meaning of section 292B - Rajashree Polyfils Ltd (RPL) has amalgamated with Century Enka Ltd. ( CEL ) at the time of assessment proceedings - HELD THAT - In the instant case we find that the return of income was filed in the name of RPL and intimation u/s 143(1) was also issued in the same name. During the course of assessment proceedings though the assessee has written letter to various authorities but we do not find any communication directly made to the Assessing Officer with regard to the amalgamation of this company though the assessee has joined the assessment proceedings. Since nothing has been placed on record to prove that the Assessing Officer despite having full knowledge about the fact of amalgamation of the assessee-company has passed the assessment order in the name of the entity which is not in existence. In these circumstances we are of the view that the order in the name of the non-existing entity was passed on account of ignorance of the fact of amalgamation. For this reason the assessment cannot be held to be invalid and be knocked down. We therefore set aside the order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment de novo in terms indicated above. Since no argument was raised on the merits and the entire assessment is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh assessment we find no justification to deal with the issues on the merits. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues:
1. Validity of assessment order due to company amalgamation.
2. Jurisdictional objection raised during assessment proceedings.
3. Taxability of interest and dividend income.
4. Deduction of interest paid on borrowed money against income.

Issue 1: Validity of assessment order due to company amalgamation

The appeal challenged the assessment order framed in the name of a company that had amalgamated with another entity. The appellant argued that as the company was non-existent at the time of assessment proceedings, the assessment should be deemed void. The appellant contended that despite providing notifications of amalgamation to tax authorities, the assessment was still conducted in the name of the defunct entity. The Departmental representative argued that the appellant had participated in the assessment proceedings without raising jurisdictional objections, thereby waiving the right to challenge the assessment. The Tribunal noted the communication discrepancies regarding the amalgamation notifications and the assessment proceedings. After analyzing relevant case laws, the Tribunal concluded that the assessment was conducted in error due to ignorance of the amalgamation fact. The Tribunal set aside the assessment order and directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment in the correct name of the successor-company, deeming it an irregularity that could be rectified.

Issue 2: Jurisdictional objection raised during assessment proceedings

The appellant raised a jurisdictional objection regarding the assessment proceedings conducted in the name of the non-existent entity. The appellant provided notifications of amalgamation to various tax authorities but failed to directly communicate this information to the Assessing Officer. The Departmental representative argued that the appellant's participation in the assessment proceedings without challenging the jurisdiction waived the right to contest the assessment. The Tribunal noted the lack of direct communication to the Assessing Officer regarding the amalgamation, leading to the assessment being conducted in error. The Tribunal ruled that the assessment was not invalid but irregular due to ignorance of the amalgamation fact, requiring the assessment to be set aside and redone in the correct name of the successor-company.

Issue 3: Taxability of interest and dividend income

The appellant contested the taxability of interest and dividend income under section 56 of the Income-tax Act. The appellant argued that as the business was not operational during the year, the amount should not be chargeable to tax. The Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to setting aside the entire assessment for a fresh review.

Issue 4: Deduction of interest paid on borrowed money against income

The appellant disputed the disallowance of the deduction of interest paid on borrowed money against interest and dividend income under section 57(iii) of the Act. The Tribunal did not address this issue in detail as the entire assessment was set aside for a fresh review.

In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the assessment order due to the error in conducting the assessment in the name of a non-existent entity post-amalgamation. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to reframe the assessment in the correct name of the successor-company, deeming it an irregularity that could be rectified.

← Previous Next →