TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 589X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PUNJAB AND HARYANA High Court ] - No substantial question of law arises - Decided against Revenue. - ITA 19/2014 to ITA 24/2014 - - - Dated:- 11-2-2015 - MR. RAVINDRA BHAT AND MR. R.K.GAUBA , JJ . For the Appellant: Mr.Kamal Sawhney, Sr.Standing counsel with Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Jr.Standing counsel. For the Respondent : Mr.Salil Kapoor and Mr.Vikas Jain, Advs. JUDGEMENT MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) 1. The Revenue in these appeals claims to be aggrieved by the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dated 19.02.2013. The ITAT had affirmed the order of CIT(Appeals) who had set aside the block assessment of M/s Micron Steels Pvt. Ltd. (the original assessee which subsequently amalgamated with M/s Lakhanpal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 01.02.2008 by virtue of an order dated 19.02.2010). The assessment years in question are 2003-04 to 2008-09. 2. The grounds on which the CIT(Appeals) and later the ITAT set aside the assessment was that the assessee had amalgamated with M/s Lakhanpal Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and neither was it assessed in the relative periods and that the amalgamation of the original assessee corporate had rendered the ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision of the Companies Act. On amalgamation, the company ceases to exist in the eyes of the law. Thus, assessment upon a dissolved company is impermissible as there is no provision in Income Tax Act to make an assessment thereupon. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A) in our view, has therefore, rightly held that assessment on a company which has been dissolved by amalgamation u/s. 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 is invalid. Admittedly, Assessee Company in the present case stood dissolved on 19.9.2010 on amalgamation with M/s Lakhanpal. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and the assessment order in the present case was framed on 31.12.2010. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A). 9. In view of the above finding on the maintainability of the assessment order itself, which has been held to be a nullity, the issue raised in the other grounds of appeals preferred by the revenue and cross objections raised by the assessee have become infructuous and they don t need adjudication. 5. It is urged on behalf of the revenue that the assessment as framed, could not have been set aside. To say so, learned counsel firstly contended that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant/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 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 clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law. 7. As a result, it is held that the first contention urged is without substance. With respect to the applicability of Section 292B, learned counsel for the assessee further argued that since the issue is invalid, initiation of the proceedings under Section 153 C and on a company which is non-existent and has already been amalgamated with other company is nullity. Thus from each angle, Section 292 B is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In Spice Entertainment (supra) this Court held as follows: 12. Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the natur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act. Therefore, the return was absolutely invalid and assessment could not be made on a invalid return. In the process, the Court observed as under:- Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submission advanced by the learned Counsel for the appellant, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 292B of the 1961 Act do not authorize the AO to ignore a defect of a substantive nature and it is, therefore, that the aforesaid provision categorically records that a return would not be treated as invalid, if the same in substance and effect is in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act . Insofar as the return under reference is concerned, in terms of Section 140 of the 1961 Act, the same cannot be treated to be even a return filed by the respondent assessee, as the same does not even bear her signatures and had not even been verified by her. In the aforesaid view of the matter, it is not possible for us to accept that the return allegedly filed by the assessee was in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act. Thus viewed, it is not possible for us to accept the contention ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
