TMI Blog2015 (7) TMI 1015X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - H S Sidhu, JM And J Sudhakar Reddy, AM,JJ. For the Appellants : Shri KM Gupta, Adv. Shri Mayur Toshiwal, CA For the Respondents : Shri Ramesh Chandra, CIT, DR Shri BRR Kumar, Sr. DR ORDER Per: J Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-X, New Delhi dated 13.11.2009 pertaining to the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07. 2. Facts in brief:- The assessee company M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt.Ltd. (hereinafter called KAPL) amalgamated with the assessee company S.C.Johnson Products Private Ltd. (hereinafter known as SGAPPL) w.e.f. 1st June, 2005. A scheme of amalgamation was filed before the Hon ble Delhi High Court and this was duly approved u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o whether the assessment order passed by the A.O. u/s 143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2008 in the name of M/s Karamchand Appliances Pvt.Ltd., is a valid order in the light of the fact that this company is no more in existence, consequent to its merger with M/s S.C.Johnson Products Ltd. 3. Heard Sh. KM Gupta along with Sh. Mayur Toshiwal, the Ld.Counsel for the assessee and Shri BRR Kumar, Ld.Sr.D.R. on behalf of the Revenue. 4. The assessee relied on two judgements of the Jurisdictional High Court and submitted that the issue is no more res integra and that no assessment can be framed on non existing amalgamating company, i.e. judgement dt. 3rd August, 2011 in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. Vs. CST in ITA 475 and 476/Del/2011 and CI ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ITAT was right in holding that the AO committed a procedural error or not and whether S.292B is applicable. He vehemently contended that S.124(3) has not been brought to the notice of the High Court and under such circumstances this judgement of the Jurisdictional High Court is not a binding precedent. In reply the Ld.Counsel for the assessee submitted that it was pleaded before the AO that M/s KAPL is a non existing entity. He further relied on the following decisions of the Tribunal and submitted that all the contentions raised by the assessee were answered by the Tribunal in these decision. (i) ITA 447/Del/2004 D Bench HCL Corporation Ltd. (for and on behalf of Vama Sundari Investment P.Ltd. vs. ACIT order dt. 7.8.2014 (ii) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct which can be cured. The appeals were, thus, finally admitted and heard on the following questions of law. (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the action of the AO in framing assessment in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd. after the said entity stood dissolved consequent upon its amalgamation with MCorp Private Ltd. wef 1.7.2003, was a mere procedural defect? (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal erred in law in holding that in view of the provisions of s.292B of the Act, the assessment, having in substance and effect, been framed on the amalgamated company which could not be regarded as null and void? We may, however, point out ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the arguments on S.124(3) of the Act at para 6.2 of its order. Hence this aspect is also devoid of merit. Also Delhi B Bench of the Tribunal in ITA nos. 5874 to 5875/Del/13 in the case of M/s Computer Engineering Services India P.Ltd . has dealt with this issue on S.124(3) at para 34 of its order dt. 29th May, 2015. Consistent with the view taken therein we dismiss all these arguments of the Ld.CIT, D.R.9.4. As the assessment order is made on a non existing person, we respectfully follow the decision of the Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and quash the assessment order as confirmed by the First Appellate Authority. In the result assessee s appeal is allowed. 10. In the result the appea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
