9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (11) TMI 1115X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ples in law. 2. The petitioner's case is that, the petitioner Madhya Pradesh ''Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam Bhopal'' (hereinafter referred to as the "MPAKVN") was incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It was incorporated with the primary object to assist with the industrial growth and development within the state of Madhya Pradesh and to provide aholistic atmosphere in order to cater to the industrial development of the state by providing lands and various other facilities that are essential for running of industries in the. The MPAKVN were established in major cities namely Bhopal, Indore, Ujjain, Rewa, Sagar, Bhopal, whereafter the Respondent authority was pleased to issue the PAN number bearing AACCM6048F to the petitioner i.e. MPAKVN, Bhopal. 3. That vide order dt. 22.07.17 a decision was taken by the State Government to amalgamate these MPAKVN's of Bhopal, Indore, Jabalpur, Ujjain, Rewa, Sagar, and Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation, Gwalior (IIDC) with Madhya Pradesh Trade and Investment Facilitation Corporation Limited (MPTRIFAC) into a single entity. 4. That the Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Government accorded sanction to the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 6080D with effect from 1 April 2018. That it was further stated the petitioner are duly filing the income tax returns in a timely manner, and that the amount as shown in the notice has already been accounted in the consolidated books of the account of MPIDC. That the Respondent no.3 once again issued a show cause notice u/s 148A notice dated 07.03.2024 to the petitioner wherein the next date of hearing was fixed for 11.03.2024. According to petitioner, the said notice was delivered via e-mail at around 7 PM on the same day i.e 07.03.2022. The petitioner duly filed his response to the said notice wherein the petitioner categorically sought around 10 days' |time in order to reply to the said notice on account of the fact that holiday had been declared from 08.03.2024 to 10.03.2024 owing to festival of Maha Shivaratri and therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to submit his reply alongwith documents. Thereafter, the Respondent no.3 without considering the reasonable request of the petitioner issued another notice dated 09.03.2024 wherein once again it was reiterated that the hearing would take place on 11.03.2024 at 3 PM. The Petitioner once again submitted his reply to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eaking orders, warranting interference of this Court. In support of his contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the order passed by this Court in the case of Jhansi Baran Pathways Pvt. Vs. Office Of The Income Tax Officer & ors. reported in I.L.R. 2024 M.P. 90 (DB). 8. On the other side, learned counsel for the respondent filed reply and opposed the petition. He argued that the petitioner has not filed ITR for the A.Y. 2020-21 and information in the case of the petitioner, for the A.Y. 2020-21 (F.Y. 2019-20) was reflected under the non-filer management system of verification module of the Insight Portal, which suggests that the petitioner has undertaken transactions of Rs.66,14,59,826/- during the year under consideration, thus, the Assessment Officer was duty bound to brought the same for taxation by initiating income escapement from taxation assessment proceedings u/s 147 of the Act, 1961. The respondent authority has issued show-cause notice to the petitioner following the due procedure of law given under Section 148 A (b) of Act, 1961 electronically on15.02.2024 alongwith the information flagged on the non-filer management system. The assessee was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b initio and bad in law. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court towards the order passed by this Court in the case of Jhansi Baran Pathways Pvt. (Supra) wherein this Court relying upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. Vs. CIT, 1991 AIR 70 and Principal Commisioner of Income Tax, New Delhi Vs. Maruti Suzuki(India) Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 331, has held that assessment/re-assessment proceedings cannot be initiated against amalgamated entities as they cease to remain in existence by virtue of amalgamation. 11. The learned counsel for the respondent confronted the petitioner's arguments saying that the assessee was categorically showcaused to establish that all the transactions undertaken by the transferor company i.e., MPAKVN, Bhopal were duly incorporated in the audited financial statement of the transferee entity i.c., MPIDC and the petitioner entity failed to do so, hence, the impugned order is justifiable. To counter the verdict given by this Court in the case of Jhansi Baran Pathways Pvt. (Supra), the learned counsel for the respondent produced the judgment passed by Hon'ble Super ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AT. Even the affidavit before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was filed on behalf of the director of MRPL (non-existing company). The assessment order painstakingly attributed specific amounts surrendered by MRPL, and after considering the special auditor's report, brought specific amounts to tax, in the search assessment order. The Court was, hence, of the opinion that all the aforementioned points clearly indicated that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability. The AO, on the other hand, had the option of making a common order, with MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts, relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Décor Pvt. Ltd.). The mere choice of the AO in issuing a separate order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot nullify it. The Hon'ble Supereme Court further held that whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the year 2013 Act), but would de ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
