TMI Blog2020 (12) TMI 1030X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessee company ceased to be in existence as on the date when the AO passed the order of assessment, assessment so framed is not sustainable in the eyes of law, being a nullity. The order of assessment is liable to be annulled and is hereby annulled. Appeal by the Assessee is allowed. - IT(TP)A No.1068/BANG/13 (Assessment year : 2004-05) - - - Dated:- 11-11-2020 - SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Appellant by: Shri Ajit Tolani, CA Respondent by: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. ORDER Per N.V. Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 03.05.2013 passed by the CIT(Appeals) IV, Bangalore, in relation to Assessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ies India Pvt., Ltd., were merged. In the original ROI filed on 22.07.2005 the income of i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd. alone had been declared. It is the plea of the Assessee that the order of assessment passed in the name of an entity that ceased to exist on the date when it is passed is void-ab-initio, illegal and bad in law and deserves to be quashed as such orders are passed in the name of i2 Technologies Software Pvt. Ltd., an entity which was not in existence on the date when the order of assessment dated 29.12.2006 was passed. It is the plea of the Assessee that the additional ground now sought to be raised is purely a legal ground and that the facts necessary to adjudicate the additional ground is already available on record an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s too narrow view of the powers of the Appellate Tribunal. Undoubtedly, the Tribunal will have the discretion to allow or not allow a new ground to be raised. But where the Tribunal is only required to consider the question of law arising from facts which are on record in the assessment proceedings we fail to see why such a question should not be allowed to be raised when it is necessary to consider that question in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. 5. We have considered the prayer for admission of additional ground of appeal and are of the view that the additional grounds of appeal deserve to be admitted for adjudication as the facts for adjudication of additional grounds of appeal are already available on re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ware Pvt. Ltd. rendered the order of assessment null and void and the same should be annulled by relying upon the decisions rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pr.CIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Civil Appeal No. 5409 of 2019) (SLP No. 4298 of 2019) Judgement dated 25.7.2019). 9. The Ld. DR for the revenue relied on the order of the AO who held that revised ROI filed by i2 Technologies (India) Pvt. Ltd., the merged entity, was invalid because it was filed beyond the time permitted u/s. 139(4) or 139(5) of the Act. She contended that notice issued in the name of erstwhile private limited company, despite company ceasing to exist, would not invalidate the assessment proceedings as the same was not a jurisdictional error but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... IL. On September 26, 2013 , the AO issued notice u/s.143(2) for AY 2011-12. On September 4, 2015, the AO issued letters to the Assessee with the following description:- The Principal Officer M/s Suzuki Powertrain India Limited (Now known as M/s Maruti Suzuki India Limited) On March 11, 2016, the AO passed draft assessment order in the name of SPIL. On April 12, 2016, the Assessee filed objections against the proposed additions in the draft assessment order before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The objections were filed by MSIL as successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL. On October 14, 2016, DRP gave its directions to the AO on the objections to the draft assessment order of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n be passed. Prior to the AO assuming jurisdiction by issuing notice u/s.143(2) of the Act, the Scheme of Amalgamation had already been approved and the AO was duly informed about the factum of the Assessee no longer being in existence. Therefore notice issued under section 143(2) of the Act in the name of amalgamating company, a nonexistent entity, was invalid and thereby the initiation of assessment proceedings was void ab initio. The fact that the amalgamated company participated in the assessment proceedings would not operate as estoppel. 13. The facts of the Assessee s case is identical to the facts of the case decided by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.(supra). Sin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
