TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 214X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the provisions contained under section 292B of the Act would come to the rescue of the Department. - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA no. 6033/Mum./2016 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri Saktijit Dey, Judicial Member And Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Arjit Chakravarty a/w Shri Abhishek Tilak For the Revenue : Shri D.G. Pansari ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. Aforesaid appeal has been filed by the Revenue challenging the order dated 26th July 2016, passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) 16, Mumbai, for the assessment year 2012 13. 2. The issue raised by the Department in the present appeal precisely is, whether the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in hold ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Assessing Officer through supporting documentary evidences, however, the Assessing Officer still proceeded to pass the assessment order in the name of the assessee, despite its merger with UTV Software Communications Ltd. Thus, learned Commissioner (Appeals) ultimately concluded that the Assessing Officer having passed the assessment order in the name of a non existent company, such order is bad in law. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the first appellate authority, the Department is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The learned Departmental Representative submitted, since, the return of income was filed in the name of the present assessee, the Assessing Officer was justified in completing the assessment in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee ceased to exist in the eyes of law. He submitted, in response to the statutory notices issued under section 143(2) / 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has time and again intimated the Assessing Officer regarding its amalgamation with UTV Software Communications Ltd. and has also furnished all documentary evidences relating to the amalgamation, including, the Hon ble High Court s order. In this context, he drew our attention to the letter dated 31st July 2014, filed before the Assessing Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings. He submitted, the assessee, vide letter dated 5th August 2014, has surrendered its PAN card upon its merger with UTV Software Communications Ltd. He submitted, on 2nd March 2015, UTV Software Commu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... taxmann.com 439 (Mum.) (Trib.); and vi) Instant Holdings Ltd. v/s ACIT, ITA no.4593/Mum./2011, dated 09.03.2916. 7. As regards the decision of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP (supra) cited by the learned Departmental Representative, the learned Authorised Representative submitted, the decision is factually distinguishable, hence, will not apply to the present case. In this context, he relied upon the following decisions: i) Shri Ishwarbhai Maganbhai Desai v/s ITO, ITA no.90/Ahd./2017, dated 23.04.2018; ii) Akzo Nobel India Ltd. v/s DCIT, IT no.387/Pun./2016, dated 05.06.2018; and iii) Genpact Infrastructure (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd. v/s DCIT, IT no.198/Del./2015, dated 27.04.2018. 8. We have co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer still proceeded to complete the assessment in the name of the assessee on by an order passed on 3rd March 2015, by which time the assessee has ceased to exist. It is relevant to observe, in compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court the assessee had filed Form no.INC 28, before the ROC communicating the order of amalgamation passed by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and also intimating about its merger with UTV Software Communications Ltd. In fact, a screen shot of the company master data available in the record of ROC, a copy of which is at Page 44 of the paper book, clearly reveals that the status of the company has been notified as amalgamated . The aforesaid facts clearly demonstrate, n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... supra), the assessee had challenged the notice of re opening issued under section 148 of the Act, wherein, the name of the erstwhile company was mentioned. The Hon ble High Court held that since the assessment proceedings had not completed, the mistake / error in the notice cannot invalidate the proceeding in view of section 292B of the Act. However, the facts are different in the present appeal, as the Assessing Officer has completed the assessment in the name of a company which has merged and is not in existence on the date the assessment order was passed. That too, even after the Assessing Officer was provided with all documentary evidences during the assessment proceedings to demonstrate that the company has been amalgamated with UTV So ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
