TMI Blog2013 (12) TMI 717X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere is no provision in Income Tax Act, 1961 to make an assessment thereon - Decided against Revenue. - I.T.A. No.1054 to 1059/Del/2012, C.O.Nos.145 to 150/Delhi 2012 - - - Dated:- 27-11-2013 - Smt. Diva Singh And Shri T. S. Kapoor,JJ. For the Appellant : Shri Anil Jain, C.A. For the Respondent : Shri R. S. Meena, CIT-DR ORDER Per Bench: These are bunch of six appeals filed by the revenue against the consolidated order of Ld CIT(A) dated 5.12.2011. The assessee has filed cross objections to these appeals. For the sake of convenience, all the appeals and cross objections were heard together and are being disposed off by this common order. Similar grounds of appeals and similar Cross Objections have been taken by Revenue a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Ld CIT(A) on the basis of various submissions deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits and also held that the company was not in existence at the time of assessment as it had already amalgamated with another company and therefore, vide paras 15 16 at pages 23 to 26 of his order adjudicated on ground No.4 raised by the assessee as under:- "I have gone through the 'copy of Master Data' of Registrar of Companies. Delhi and Haryana, filed at (Page no 101 of the paper book.) As per the same the status of the appellant company is mentioned as "Amalgamated" meaning thereby dissolved. Accordingly, it is an admitted fact that the appellant company M/s Presto Metals Private Limited stood dissolved on amalgamation with M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... x 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, Judgment dated 11th March,2011. f) Triveni Engineering and 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 Commission of ................on 14 February,2006: 2006 101 ITD Mum, 2008 303 ITR 1 Mum; h) Pampasar Distillery Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITAT, Kolkata E Bench, (2007) 15 SOT 331 (Kol); i) CIT vs. Kurban Hussain Ibrahimji Mithiborwala, 1973 CTR (SC) 454; (1971) 82 ITR 821 (SC); j) Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs CIT ITA 475 and 476 of 2011 The gist of the judgment of the jurisdic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s been dissolved and struck off the register of companies u/s 560 of the Companies Act,1956, is invalid, even though the company participated in assessment proceedings; it is not a case of discontinuance of business so as to attract section 176 nor does section 159 cure the lacuna." I have also gone through the views of the Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. vs CIT 186 ITR 278. IT is held in M. H. Smith (Plant Hire) Ltd. Vs D. L. Mainwaring (T/A Inshore), 1986 BCLC342 (CA) that "Once a company is dissolved it become a non existent party and therefore no action can be brought in its name. Thus an insurance which was subrogated to the rights of another insured company was held not to be entitled to maintain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of the case. The appellant company stood dissolved on 07.12.2009 on amalgamation with M/s Optus Resorts (P) Ltd., In view of the 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." 3. Aggrieved the revenue is in appeal before us in respect of all years and Assessee has filed cross objections to these appeals. 4. At the outset, the Ld DR fairly conceded that similar appeals were filed by revenue in some other cases also and same has been decided against the revenue so the cases are covered against revenue. However, he submitted that in the case of SPN Milk Products Industries Pvt. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted on 31.12.2010. It is also an admitted fact that Assessing Officer was in the knowledge of the merger as is apparent from the assessment order itself. In view of the above findings on the maintainability of the assessment order itself which had to be a nullity the issues raised in other grounds of appeals preferred by the revenue have become infructuous and they do not need adjudication. 6. However, we may observe that Assessing Officer is at liberty to take appropriate action in the case of appropriate entity in accordance with law subject to time limits prescribed under the Act. With these observations we uphold the order of the Ld CIT(A). 7. With regard to cross objections filed by the assessee no specific arguments were advanced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
