Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C BENCH, MUMBAI
The Additional Commissioner of Vs Respondent Income Tax, Special Range 22, Mumbai Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai - 400020 ……………. Appearances For the Appellant/Assessee : Shri Madhur Agarwal For the Respondent/Department : Shri Santhil Kumaran Date of conclusion of hearing : 06.09.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 05.12.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, dated 28.02.2002, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-I, Mumbai, [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] for the Assessment Year 1998-99 whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order, dated 16.03.2001 passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act‟).
The present appeal was filed by Jardinee Fleming India Securities Pvt. Ltd. (name changed to J.P. Morgan India Private Limited) being successor to Jardinee Fleming India Broking Limited pursuant to scheme of amalgamation approved by Hon‟ble Bombay High Court, vide order dated 03.04.2000.
The Appellant has raised additional ground which read as under: “The Appellant submits that as the assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer on March 16, 2001 on Jardinee Fleming India Broking Ltd. which ceased to exist pursuant to its amalgamation into Jardinee Fleming India Securities Pvt. Ltd. with effect from April 01, 1999, the assessment in so far as it is framed on a non-existent entity is bad in law.” 4. Ld. Departmental Representative objected to admission of additional ground and submitted that this has been raised for the first time before the Tribunal. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant, in response, submitted that the additional ground raised by the Appellant is in the nature of legal ground and can be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. We have considered the rival submission. In our view the additional ground raised by the Appellant is a legal ground and does not require examination of any facts not already on record. Accordingly, in view of the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. vs. CIT: 229 ITR 383, the additional ground raised by the Appellant is admitted.
Pressing the additional ground into service the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that the Assessment Order has been passed in the name of an entity Assessment Year: 1998-99 which was not in existence and therefore, the same was void- ab-initio. In order to substantiate the aforesaid submission he took us through the documents placed on records and submitted that the Revenue was put to notice about the amalgamation. Vide order, dated 03.04.2000, the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court had sanctioned the scheme of amalgamation with 01.04.1999 as the appointed date. A certified copy of the aforesaid order was filed with the