AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD (AKZO NOBEL CAR REFINISHES INDIA PVT LTD AMALGAMATED WITH AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD),KOLKATA vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11(1), KOLKATA

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM ITA Nos.3048 & 3049/KOL/2025 (Assessment Year: 2008-09 & 2009-10) AKZO NOBEL INDIA LTD (AKZO NOBEL CAR REFINISHES INDIA PVT LTD AMALGAMATED WITH AKZO THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER NOBEL INDIA LTD) OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE UNIT NO. 801, 8TH FLOOR, 11(1), AAYAKAR BHAWAN, SOUTH CITY BUSINESS, P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, Vs. PARK, 770, KOLKATA-700069, WEST EASTERN METROPOLITAN BENGAL BYPASS, ANANDPUR, KOLKATA-700071, WEST BENGAL (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN No. AAACI6297A Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, AR Revenue by : Shri Sallong Yaden, DR Date of hearing: 09.07.2026 Date of pronouncement: 22.07.2026

O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, AM:

This are appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 16.10.2025, 17.10.2025 for the AYs2008-09 & 2009-10.

A.Y. 2008-09 ITA No. 3048/KOL/2025 2. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee took an additional ground, which is against the order of Learned CIT

2.1. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the material on record, we find that the assessee has raised the above additional ground of appeal challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to make addition. In our opinion the issued raised in the additional ground is a purely a legal issue qua which all the facts are available in the appeal folder and no further verification of facts are required from any quarter whatsoever. In our considered view the assessee is at liberty to raise any legal issue before any appellate authority for the first time even when the same has not been raised before the lower authorities. The case of the assessee is squarely covered by the decisions of the Apex court in the case of i) Jute Corporation of India Ltd. Vs CIT in 187 ITR 688 , ii) National Thermal Power Co. Ltd v. CIT [1998] 229 ITR 383 and also by the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in PCIT vs. Britannia Industries Ltd. [2017] 396 ITR 677 (Cal). Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication.

3.1. The ld. AR submitted that the said company has been amalgamated with effect from 01.04.2011 with M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the said fact has been brought to the notice of the ld. AO by the assessee vide letter dated 11-6-2012 which was

3.2. The ld. DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the authorities below.

3.3. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that in this case the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued in the name of a non-existent entity i.e. M/s AZKO Nobel Car Refinishers (I) Pvt. Ltd., which was merged with assessee Company with effect from 01.04.2011 and the said fact has been brought to the notice of the ld. AO by the assessee vide

“11. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the erstwhile company M/s Akzo Noble Car refinishes India Pvt. Ltd. in whose hands, the assessment was framed by the AO, amalgamated w.e.f. 01.04.2011 with M/s Akzo Nobel India Ltd. and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the AO by the assessee vide letter dated 11.06.2012 which was received in his office on 19.06.2012, copy of the same is placed on record as Annexure-2 annexed to the assessee’s compilation. It is also noticed that the TPO passed the order dated 04.01.2013 on the erstwhile Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes India Pvt. Ltd. but ignored the aforesaid intimation furnished by the assessee before the AO on June 19, 2012. The AO passed the draft assessment order dated 12.03.2013 and the ld. DRP also issued the directions vide order dated 24.12.2013, thereafter, the AO framed the final assessment order dated 31.01.2014 in the name of erstwhile entity i.e. Akzo Nobel Car Refinishes India Ltd. without any mention of the transferee entity name i.e. Akzo Noble India Ltd. From the aforesaid narrated facts, it is clear that the assessment has been framed by the AO on an entity which was not in existence after the order dated 18.04.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore, copy of which is placed at page nos. 2 to 37 of the assessee’s compilation. 12. It is noticed that an identical issue having similar facts has been decided by this bench of the Tribunal wherein one of us (Accountant Member is the author) in ITA No. 2025/Del/2014 for the assessment year 2009-10 in the case of M/s Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with Genpact India) Vs DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi (supra) wherein the relevant findings have been given in paras 8 to 14 of the order dated 09.02.2018 which read as under: “8. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that the assessee M/s Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd. amalgamated with M/s Genpact India in pursuant to the order dated 19.11.2010 w.e.f. 01.04.2010 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court and this fact was brought to the notice of the AO (ACIT, Circle-1, Jaipur) vide letter dated 24.01.2011 which was received in the office of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-12, New

A.Y. 2009-10 ITA No. 3049/KOL/2025 4. The issue raised in this appeal by raising additional ground is similar to one as decided by us in ITA No. 3048/KOL/2025. Accordingly, our decision would, mutatis mutandis, apply to

Order pronounced on 22.07.2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY) (RAJESH KUMAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) Kolkata, Dated: 22.07.2026 Sudip Sarkar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. CIT DR, ITAT, 4. 5. Guard file. BY ORDER, True Copy//

Asst. Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Kolkata