TMI Blog2020 (8) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nonexistent and the proceedings initiated in its name would be bad in law. The decisions relied on by the appellant were sought to be distinguished. The learned Single Bench after consideration of the factual position, noted the conduct of the appellant in not bringing to the notice of the Revenue about the amalgamation, its conduct of filing return of income in the name of OAS after the amalgamation and obtained refunds issued in the name of OAS, which will all go to show that M/s.OAS continued to exist even after amalgamation. Therefore, the learned Single Bench correctly concluded that by the very conduct, the appellant had led the Department to believe that OAS, as an entity, existent. - Decided against assessee. - Writ Appeal Nos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner of Service Tax [(2012) 280 ELT 43]; M/s.Rustagi Engineering Udyog Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2016 dated 26.07.2017]; BDR Builders Developers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2016 dated 26.07.2017]; and Alamelu Veerappan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(2) [304 CTR 512]. 4. The respondent/Revenue resisted the prayer sought for in the writ petitions stating that the Assessing Officer was not aware of the amalgamation of the company moreover, the return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 had been filed on 07.03.2016 in the name of OAS by the appellant confirming the position that OAS was a functioning entity. Further, income t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e appellant is not entitled to any relief is that what were impugned in both the writ petitions were order of assessment and order imposing penalty and a writ petition against such an order is not maintainable on account of the availability of the effective and efficacious alternate remedy. This is one more ground on which the writ petitions should have been dismissed. 8. With regard to the case law relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, the learned Single Bench has rightly noted the factual position in each of those decisions more particularly, in the case of Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court found an admitted fact that the Assessing Officer was informed of the amalgamating ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee Company was carrying on business. It is not in dispute that the assessee Company filed its Return of Income for the said assessment year. This was processed and an intimation was issued under Section 143(1) of the Act on 15.01.2002. When the assessment was reopened under Section 147 of the Act by issuing notice dated 20.03.2007 under Section 148 of the Act, the assessee Company was carrying on business. The assessee fully cooperated in the reassessment proceedings and we have mentioned about the various hearing dates on which the Assessing Officer heard the assessee. At no point of time, the assessee informed the Assessing Officer that the Company has been struck off from the Register of Companies on 25.05.2007. Thus there was no occ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
