TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 1317X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , Mumbai (Ld. AO) passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C (13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 28/04/2017 in pursuance to the direction of the Learned Dispute Resolution Panel-1, Mumbai (the Ld. DRP) for assessment year 2013-14 raising, in all thirteen grounds of appeal, as under:- Based on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Appellant respectfully craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax-14(1)(1) [ Learned AO‟], under Section143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ( the Act‟)( Assessment order‟), in pursuance to the Directions issued by Dispute Resolution Panel-1 ( Hon‟ble DRP‟), Mumbai, on the following grounds: General Ground 1. Erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant at Rs 1424,94,70,020 against a total income of Rs 1337,19,10,332 as computed by the Appellant in its revised computation of income. A. Transfer Pricing Grounds Reference made to the Transfer Pricing Officer (' TPO') 2. Erred in making a reference of the Appellant's case to the Learned TPO under Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. Erred in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 271(1 }(c) of the Act Each of the above grounds of appeal is without prejudice to and independent of one another. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or delete the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Hon'ble Income tax Appellate Tribunal to decide this appeal according to law. 02 Assessee Company is engaged in the business of providing ITES services to its group entities across the globe. It also provides management consultancy and technology outsourcing services. Assessee filed its return of income on 29/11/2013 declaring total income of Rs. 1338,62,60,790/-. The return of income was taken up for scrutiny. During the course of assessment proceedings, assessee filed a revised return of total income showing total income of Rs. 1337,19,10,332/-. 03 Before ld AO, during the course of assessment proceedings, assessee submitted a letter dated 14/12/2016 stating that Hon‟ble Bombay High Court has passed an order dated 20/10/2016 sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation of Accenture Services Pvt Ltd with Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... own as Accenture Solutions Pvt.Ltd) . The assessee is aggrieved by that order and has preferred appeal before us. 09 Assessee has made an application for admission of the additional ground of appeal on 08/01/2019. In the original appeal memo, the assessee has preferred thirteen grounds of appeal whereas in the application for admission of additional grounds of appeal, assessee has raised additional grounds from serial No. 14 to 17 of the appeal. 10 Ground nos. 14 to 16 challenge the transfer pricing adjustment. These are on the merits of the addition. Ground 17 is as under:- 17. Without prejudice to the Ground Nos 1 to 16, the Final Assessment order dated 28 November, 2017 passed under Section 143(3) / 144C(13) of the Act is bad in law and liable to be quashed as the assessment order was framed on a non-existing entity as on the date of such order (the said company having merged with Accenture Solutions Private Limited w.e.f. 01 December 2016). 11 The learned authorized representative commenced his arguments stating that on the jurisdictional issue, he would like to press ground 17 first. For the admission of the above ground, he relied upon the decision of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... putting this to the attention of the learned assessing officer, he passed draft assessment order in the name of non-existing company. He further referred to the direction issued by the learned Dispute Resolution Panel wherein the ld. DRP issued the direction in the correct name (in the name of resultant company). He, then took us to the assessment order passed under section 143(3) wherein the learned assessing officer, on page 2 at para No.1, once again described the facts of the amalgamation and despite this, he passed an assessment order in the name of Accenture Services Pvt Ltd‟, instead of Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd‟. Therefore, he submitted that the assessment order passed on a non-existent entity is a nullity and therefore, the same is required to be quashed. He further held that such an order passed is without any jurisdiction and deserves to be set aside. For this proposition, he relied upon the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 416 ITR 613 (SC) dated 25/07/2019. He further referred to the decision of Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 285 of 2014 in CIT vs Spice Infotainment Ltd dated 02nd No ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e once again re-iterated several judicial precedents already cited by him. 18 We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We find that the Accenture Services Pvt Ltd‟ is amalgamated with Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd‟ vide order of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court dated 20th October, 2016 wherein the scheme of amalgamation under sections 391 to 394 of the Companies‟ Act, 1956 was approved and such scheme became operative from 01-12-2016 with an appointed date of 01st April, 2016. In view of this, it is apparent that Accenture Services Pvt Ltd‟ ceased to exist by virtue of this order with effect from 01st April 2015. This intimation was given to the assessing officer on 14/12/2016. Assessee has also placed the duly acknowledged letter submitted to the assessing officer. The above fact has also been recorded by the learned assessing officer in his draft assessment order passed on 15/12/2016. The assessing officer, even after that, passed draft Assessment order in the name of Accenture Services Pvt Ltd (Now Merged with and Known as Accenture Solutions Pvt Ltd ). The learned DRP has correctly men ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment (supra) on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment (supra). 34. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable. 20 Now we come to the order of the Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in case of PCIT vs Sony Ericsson Mobile Communica ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
