TMI Blog2023 (5) TMI 254X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mated company (formerly known as amalgamating company). The AO ought to have correctly passed order in the name of 'LAIP' or 'LAIP (formerly known as LOAI) . The assessment order, referring only to the name of the amalgamating company without any reference to the name of the amalgamated company, which was passed after due communication of the amalgamation, in our considered opinion, suffers from illegality and is incapable of countenance. We, therefore, hold that the facts of the case are governed by Maruti (SC) [ 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] and the consequential assessment order is liable to be set-aside. Appeal allowed. - ITA. No.110/PUN/2018 - - - Dated:- 4-5-2023 - Shri R.S. Syal, Vice President And Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna And Mr. Hardik Nirmal For the Revenue : Shri Mallikarjun Utture ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order dated 10-11-2017 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also called the Act ) in relation to the assessment year 2013-1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ribunal (NCLT) effective from 01-04-2016. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee duly intimated the change in its status to the AO/DRP and despite that the final order of the AO as well as the directions issued by the DRP were in wrong name. In support of his contention, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in Pr.CIT Vs. Maruti Suzuki India Private Limited (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) . 6. Au contraire, the ld. DR refuted the contention by submitting that the return was filed by the assessee in its old name, namely, LOAI; a letter dt. 19-04-2017 was addressed to the Secretariat DRP on letter head of LOAI; a letter dt. 27-04-2017 was filed on the letter head of LOAI; and also the appeal before the Tribunal was filed in Form No.36B showing the name LOAI (since merged with LAIP). Relying on the judgment in the case of Pr.CIT Vs. M/s. Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd. (2022) 443 ITR 194 (SC) , the ld. DR contended that there was no illegality in the assessment order so as to warrant its quashing. 7. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the relevant material on record. The undisputed facts are that the NCLT passed the order on 01-03-2017 amalgamating L ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of `Maruti Suzuki India Limited (as successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL since amalgamated) . However, the final assessment order dt . 31-10- 2016 was passed in the name of `SPIL (amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Limited) . Since the final assessment order was passed in the name of SPIL, being a non-existent entity, the Hon ble Supreme Court held that it was an illegality, which made the assessment order void. From the facts of this case, it clearly transpires that the final assessment order passed in the name of amalgamating company (merged with the amalgamated company), was held to be void because the assessee had clearly informed the AO about the amalgamation well before the passing of the assessment order. 9. The facts of Mahagun Realtors (SC), as relied by the ld. DR, are that Mahagun Realtors (P) Ltd.(MRPL) got amalgamated with Mahagun India Private Limited (MIPL) by virtue of an order dated 10-09-2007 of Hon ble High Court effective from 01- 04-2006. After a search and seizure action, the assessee filed its return on 28-05-2010 describing itself as MRPL. The assessment order was also passed in the old name MRPL as represented by MIPL. The Tribunal quashed the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee in its letters depicted the name of amalgamating company prior to that of the amalgamated company and hence lost its right to claim the quashing of the assessment order on the ground of wrong mentioning of the name. In this regard, we find that there are different sets of obligations of the assessee as well as the AO pursuant to amalgamation. An assessee is required to disclose the fact of amalgamation to the AO after the Scheme of amalgamation has been approved by the Competent Court. In case the amalgamation took place before the filing of the return of income, then the return is required to be filed in the name of the amalgamated entity. In case the order of approval to the scheme of amalgamation is passed after the filing of the return, then to intimate this fact to the AO. The manner of intimation is irrelevant so long as the factum of amalgamation is clearly brought out. Even if the assessee intimates by writing the name of the amalgamating company first and then that of the amalgamated company or vice-versa, the object and purpose of communication gets satisfied on the declaration of the changed status pursuant to amalgamation. This results in discharging the bur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
