STATE BANK OF INDIA (SUCCESSOR TO STATE BANK OF MYSORE),MUMBAI vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -2(2)(1), MUMBAI

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई पीठ�, मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BENCH: G BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA 1042/MUM/2022 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI. M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN ACIT-2(2)(1), ROOM NO. 545, 5 AS STATE BANK OF TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MYSORE) MUMBAI., -400021, MAHARASHTRA 3 RD FLOOR, FRT Vs. DEPARTMENT , STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT. MUMBAI. -400021, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

ITA 1055/MUM/2022 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S STATE BANK OF ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI. INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS ACIT-2(2)(1), ROOM NO. STATE BANK OF MYSORE) 545, 5 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR 3 RD FLOOR, FRT BHAVAN, MUMBAI., - Vs. DEPARTMENT , STATE BANK 400021, MAHARASHTRA BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT. MUMBAI. -400021, MAHARASHTRA अपीलाथ� Appellant ��थ� Respondent

Permanent Account Number of AAACS8577K Assessee:

अपीलाथ� �ारा/Departmetn/Revenue represented by: Dr. Kishor Dhule - CIT DR ��थ� �ारा/Assessee represented by: Shri Ketan Ved & Ninad Patade, ARs

सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 29-Jul-2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date of pronouncement: 17/08/2026

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) आदेश / ORDER PER SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present cross appeals are directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. CIT(A)"] dated 15/03/2022 for A.Y. 2017-18.

“1. Validity of assessment order 1.1. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the action of the learned Assessing Officer (AO] to frame an assessment on State Bank of Mysore (PAN AACCS0155P), under section 143(3) without appreciating that the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore is amalgamated into State Bank of India on 1 April 2017 and hence is no longer in existence. 1.2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that there cannot be any assessment against a nonexistent assessee and accordingly, the assessment order passed in the name of State Bank of Mysore (PAN AACCS0155P) is illegal, null and void ab initio and hence ought to be set aside. 1.3. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the AO mistakenly mentioned the name of the appellant as State Bank of Mysore in place of State Bank of India, which is a merely procedural or technical in nature as per section 292B of the Act. 1.4. The learned CIT(A) erred in holding that the appellant has made an error in filing the return of income in the name of a non-existent entity.” 3. The Ld. AR submitted that Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee challenges the validity of the assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity and raises a pure question of law 2

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) going to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. It was submitted that the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore stood amalgamated with State Bank of India with effect from 01/04/2017 pursuant to Government of India Notification No. GSR 158(E) dated 22/02/2017. Inviting our attention to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the assessment order, the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO himself has categorically recorded the fact of amalgamation and was fully aware that the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore had ceased to exist. It was further submitted that despite such admitted position, notice u/s 143(2) dated 03/07/2017 was issued and the assessment order dated 27/03/2018 was passed in the name of the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore. It was, therefore, contended that the assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and suffers from an incurable jurisdictional defect not saved by the provisions of section 292B of the Act. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [(2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC)] and the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in State Bank of India (Successor to erstwhile State Bank of Indore) vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.277, 278 & Ors. & ITA Nos.410, 411 & Ors., order dated 20/09/2022.

3.1. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the amalgamated entity had participated in the assessment proceedings by filing the requisite details and submissions before the Assessing Officer and had never objected to the continuation of the proceedings. It was contended that the assessment was in substance made in respect of the income of the successor entity and the mere mention of the erstwhile State Bank of Mysore in the assessment order was only 3

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) a technical or procedural defect, which stood cured by the provisions of section 292B of the Act. It was, therefore, submitted that the assessment could not be annulled merely on account of the description of the assessee in the assessment order. The Ld. DR accordingly prayed that Ground No. 1 raised by the assessee be dismissed and the assessment order be upheld.

We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in light of the records placed before us.

4.1. Despite recording the aforesaid facts in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer proceeded to complete the assessment on 4

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) 27/03/2018 in the name of State Bank of Mysore, an entity which had admittedly ceased to exist in the eyes of law. It is well settled that upon amalgamation, the amalgamating company loses its separate legal identity and any assessment thereafter has to be framed only in the hands of the amalgamated entity. Consequently, an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity is without jurisdiction and void ab initio.

4.1.1. We further note that the Government Gazette notification giving effect to the amalgamation was a public notification and was not a document which was required to be specifically furnished by the assessee for the information of the Revenue. It cannot, therefore, be contended that the assessee failed to bring the fact of amalgamation to the notice of the Assessing Officer by not furnishing the relevant Gazette notification before initiation or during the course of the assessment proceedings. At the time of amalgamation, the requisite approvals and No Objection Certificates from the concerned departments are also required to be obtained in the proceedings before the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the Revenue would have been a concerned party and, consequently, the jurisdictional Assessing Officer could not reasonably be said to be unaware of the proposed amalgamation. Further, being public sector nationalised banks, the relevant information pertaining to their amalgamation was duly notified through the Official Gazette and was available in the public domain. The Revenue, therefore, cannot take a plea that the Assessing Officer was unaware of the fact of amalgamation. This position is further fortified by the assessment order itself, wherein, in the opening paragraph, the Assessing Officer has categorically recorded the fact of amalgamation of the erstwhile State Bank of 5

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) Mysore with State Bank of India pursuant to the aforesaid Government Notification.

4.2. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Principal CIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) has categorically held that an assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity after its amalgamation is a substantive illegality which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer and is not a mere procedural defect curable u/s 292B of the Act. While affirming the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Spice Entertainment Ltd. vs. CIT [(2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del.)], the Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that participation in the assessment proceedings by the amalgamated company would not validate an assessment framed against a non-existent entity. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO [(2015) 370 ITR 288 (Del.)]. A similar issue also came up before the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of State Bank of India (Successor to erstwhile State Bank of Indore) vs. DCIT in ITA Nos.277, 278 & Ors. & ITA Nos.410, 411 & Ors., order dated 20/09/2022, wherein the assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating bank was held to be unsustainable.

4.3. In the present case, the Revenue cannot contend that the Assessing Officer was unaware of the amalgamation. On the contrary, the assessment order itself records not only the fact of amalgamation but also the Government Notification giving effect thereto. The scrutiny notice u/s 143(2) was admittedly issued on 03/07/2017, i.e., after the amalgamation had taken effect from 01/04/2017. Therefore, despite having complete knowledge that the assessee had ceased to exist, the Assessing Officer continued the proceedings and ultimately framed the assessment in the name 6

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) of a non-existent entity. Such an assessment suffers from an incurable jurisdictional defect.

4.4. Respectfully following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) and Spice Entertainment Ltd. (supra) and consistent with the view taken by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in State Bank of India (Successor to erstwhile State Bank of Indore) (supra), we hold that the assessment order dated 27/03/2018 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act in the name of State Bank of Mysore is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

4.5. Since we have quashed the assessment itself, the remaining grounds raised by the assessee as well as the grounds raised by the Revenue on the merits of the additions have become academic and, therefore, do not require adjudication.

Accordingly, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed. The assessment order is quashed.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed as infructuous and the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17/08/2026.

Sd/- Sd/- JAGADISH BEENA PILLAI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai Dated: 17/08/2026 SC, Sr. P.S.

ITA 1042 & 1055/MUM/2022 M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE) Copy to: ACIT-2(2)(1), MUMBAI., ACIT-2(2)(1), ROOM NO. 545, 5 TH 1 FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI., -400021, MAHARASHTRA M/S STATE BANK OF INDIA(FORMERLY KNOWN AS STATE BANK OF MYSORE), 2 3 RD FLOOR, FRT DEPARTMENT , STATE BANK BHAVAN, NARIMAN POINT. MUMBAI., -400021, MAHARASHTRA 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 5 GUARD FILE