ITO, WARD-2(3), JAMSHEDPUR vs. M/S MOUNT VIEW DEALMARK PVT. LTD., KOLKATA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 290/RAN/2019Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi16 September 2020AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessment order passed on a non-existent company is bad in law. Therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was amalgamated with another company on 09.08.2018. The assessment order was passed on 20.12.2018, after the assessee company had ceased to exist. The fact of amalgamation was brought to the notice of the AO before the assessment order was passed.

What were the issues?

Whether an assessment order passed on a company that has ceased to exist due to amalgamation is valid in law. Whether the reopening of assessment was justified when the company was non-existent.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, E-Court at KOLKATA

Before: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Godara

Heard together (2 matters)

I.T.A. No. 290/Ran/2019
C.O. No. 05/Ran/2020

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Appearances by: Sh. N.S. Kalkho, JCIT, appeared on behalf of the Revenue. Sh. R.R. Mittal, FCA, appeared on behalf of the Assessee. Date of concluding the hearing : September 2nd, 2020 Date of pronouncing the order : September 16th, 2020 ORDER

Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, AM:

1.

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-Jamshedpur, [hereinafter the “CIT(A)”], dated 03.10.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ for short) for AY 2011-12.

2.

The assessee filed a Cross Objection. 3. We first take the grounds of the Cross Objection. The grounds read as follows: “1. For that the assessment made on the company which was amalgamated is bad in law particularly when the facts of amalgamation was brought to the notice of AO before completion of the assessment.

C.O. No. 05/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Mount View Dealmark Pvt. Ltd.

2. For that the Ld. CIT (A) was fully justified in cancelling the assessment as the reopening of the assessment u/s 147 itself was bad in law.

3.

For that even on merits the Ld CIT(A) should have decided the appeal since the assessee duly proved the identity, creditworthiness and genuinity of the transaction.”

4.

Rival contentions heard. On a careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, perusal of the papers on record and case laws cited, we hold as follows.

5.

The assessee company was merged with M/s. Vishesh Marketing Pvt. Ltd. This fact was reported to the AO vide a letter dated 14.11.2018, a copy of which is at page 177 of paper book. Date of amalgamation was 09.08.2018. The assessment order was passed on 20.12.2018. The assessee company M/s. Mount View Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. was not in existence as on the dated of passing of the assessment order. Hence the assessment order passed on a non-existent company is bad in law. We are holding so by respectfully following the judgement passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC).

6.

This ground was taken before the CIT(A) but the ld. CIT(A) has granted relief to the assessee as another ground but had not adjudicated this issue. He held that the re- opening is bad in law. As the assessment itself is bad in law as it was made on a non- existent company, no separate orders need to be passed on the Revenue appeal.

7.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross Objection of the assessee is allowed. Kolkata, the 16th September, 2020. Sd/- Sd/- [S.S. Godara] [J. Sudhakar Reddy] Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 16.09.2020 Bidhan

C.O. No. 05/Ran/2020 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Mount View Dealmark Pvt. Ltd. Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. 1. ITO, Ward-2(3), Jamshedpur.

2. M/s. Mount View Dealmark Pvt. Ltd., 199/N, Kalipada Mukherjee Road, Barisha, Kolkata-700 008.

3. CIT(A)-Jamshedpur.

4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Ranchi Bench, Ranchi.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →