9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 1099X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y i.e. M/s Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. which could not have been reassessed under any circumstance, more so in view of Delhi High Court Decisions :- • Spice Infotainment Ltd. Vs. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.) • Impsat (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 91 ITD 354 (Del.)" 2. In this case, assessment was framed u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of the IT Act. In the assessment order. Assessing Officer added a sum of ₹ 1,40,00,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act as unexplained share capital money receipt. Before the Ld. CIT, assessee objected to the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer in reassessment proceedings. The submission of the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) in this regard were as under :- "The first legal ground is tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... • CIT vs. Express Newspapers Ltd. 40 ITR 38 (Mad) affirmed in 53 ITR 250 (SC)" 3. The Ld. CIT(A) consider the submission of the assessee and held as under :- "Considering the above, the reopening proceeding cannot be said to be invalid. Further, the appellant's claim that the Company M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. was not in existence at the time of issue of notice, is not accepted as for the relevant assessment year i.e. 2004-05, the Appellant Company was very much in existence as the merger took place w.e.f. 01.04.2006. Even the Authorized Representative of the appellant company had asked the Assessing Officer to treat the return already filed on 11.08.2004 as filed in response to notice under section 148. Apparently, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice is, therefore, not upheld. This ground of appeal is, therefore, rejected." 4. Against the above order, assessee is in appeal before us. 5. We have heard both the counsel and perused the record. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has submitted that the assumption of jurisdiction by the assessing officer is not valid. He submitted that assessment in this case has been framed upon M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. He submitted that the assessee vide letter dated 20.10.2011 has brought to the notice of the Ld. Assessing officer that the company namely M/s Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. has already been merged with M/s Minda Capital Ltd. 6. In this regard, Ld. Counsel referred to the Hon'ble High Court order dated 29.8.2007 evidencing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as not inexistence. Vide letter dated 13.10.2011 and other letter dated 20.10.2011 Assessing Officer has been informed that Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. has merged with Shankar Wire Links India Pvt. Ltd. and later name of the Shankar Wire Links India Pvt. Ltd. changed to Minda Capital Ltd. In these circumstances, it is the claim of the assessee that assessment framed by the assessing officer on M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. is not valid. 9. In this regard, we note that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. vs. CIT 24 CTR 500 has held that assessment in the name of the company which has been amalgamated with another company and stands dissolved is null and void; assessment framed in the name of a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ifficult to digest the circuitous route adopted by the Tribunal holding that the assessment was in fact in the name of amalgamated company and there was only a procedural defect. After the sanction of the scheme on 11th Feb., 2004, S ceased to exist w.e.f. 1st July, 2003. Even if S had filed the returns, it became incumbent upon the IT authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said 'dead person'. When notice under s. 143(2) was sent, the appellant/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 AO made the assessment in the name of S which was non-existing entity on that day. In such proceedings an assessment order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AO only if it is still permissible as per law and has not become timebarred." 10. We find that above case law is squarely applicable on the facts of this case. In the present case M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. has amalgamated with another company vide order of the Hon'ble High Court dated 29.8.2007 evidencing merger with effect from 1.4.2006. This aspect was duly informed to the assessing officer by the assessee vide letter dated 13.10.2011 and another letter dated 21.10.2011. Thus, it is clear that with this amalgamation made with effect from 1.4.2006 M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Ltd. ceased to exist. Thus, by this amalgamation, the amalgamating company M/s. Rajesh Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd. ceased to exist to the eye of l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
