TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 1038X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oner(s) : Mr. Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy For the Respondent(s) : Ms. Sundari R. Pisupati and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar ORDER: (PER HON BLE SRI JUSTICE P.S AM KOSHY) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing the order dated 24.03.2023, passed by the respondent No. 1/The Income Tax Officer vide DIN Notice No. ITBA/AST/S/148A/2022-23/1051256350(1), under Section 148A (d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act ) for the assessment year 2016-2017 against Siri Drugs India Private Limited. The aforesaid company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited since had got merged with the petitioner s Company under the scheme of amalgamation with effect from 01.04.2015, the challenge is also to the consequence notice under Section 148 of the Act. 2. Heard Mr. Bommareddy Gangadhara Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Sundari R. Pisupati, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 2 and Mr. Gadi Praveen Kumar, learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondent No. 3. 3. A Company Petition was filed before this High Court vide C.P. No. 41 of 2016 seeking sanction of the scheme of amalgamation of Siri Drugs India Private Limited wi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he petitioner, since the High Court itself had given the approval of the scheme of amalgamation and further ordered the dissolution of the transferor Company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited, no proceedings could had been drawn against the said Company as it was no longer in existence. 8. It was also the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that in spite of the fact that the petitioner/amalgamating Company having intimated the authorities concerned about the amalgamation and the Company having got merged and being no longer in existence, the respondent authorities without paying heed to the objection, has proceeded further with the reassessment. 9. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner it is a settled position of law that once when the Company gets merged, the transferor Company becomes non-existing company. Thereafter, it is only the transferee Company or the amalgamating Company which remains in existence. It was also contended that the fact that Siri Drugs India Private Limited being a non-existing Company, it was illogical on the part of the respondents in issuing directions seeking filing of the return by a Company which no longer exist ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) and contended that the High Court of Delhi in an identical set of facts had refused to entertain the writ petition and directed the amalgamated Company to raise all these objections and grounds before the authorities concerned themselves. 15. Having heard the contentions and submissions put forth by the learned counsel appearing on either side and on perusal of records, some of the admitted factual matrix of the case which needs to be considered is that; C.P. No. 41 of 2016 was allowed by High Court approving the scheme of amalgamation with M/s. Virchow Drugs Limited vide order dated 13.03.2016. Further, in the approval of the scheme of amalgamation by High Court, the transferor Company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited got merged with the transferee Company i.e. M/s. Virchow Drugs Limited. The approval and sanction granted for the amalgamation is from the appointed date i.e. 01.04.2015. 16. Another admitted fact is that, technically pursuant to the approval of the scheme given by the High Court, the transferor Company i.e. Siri Drugs India Private Limited has become extinct with effect from 01.04.2015. This in other words also means that Siri Drugs ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppels against law. This position now holds the filed in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2nd Nov., 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for asst. yr. 2011-12. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 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 asst. yr. 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to asst. yr. 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, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
