VIDHARBHA KONKAN GRAMIN BANK,,NAGPUR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,, SOLAPUR

Shri C. Naresh appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the assessee is a Co-operative Bank and is a successor to erstwhile „Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank‟. Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank filed return of income for the assessment year 2011-12 on 24-09-2011. During the pendency of assessment proceedings, Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank merged with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank. The notification in this regard was made by Ministry of Finance, Government of India on 28-02-2013. A copy of notification is at pages 3 to 6 of the paper book. An intimation was sent to the Assessing Officer regarding amalgamation of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank on 08-11-2013. The said communication is at page 7 of the paper book. Thereafter, notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued by the Assessing Officer on 09-12-2013 in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank. The assessee again vide communication dated 20-12-2013 informed the Assessing Officer that Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank amalgamated with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank. The said communication is at page 9 of the paper book. Vide same communication the assessee requested to transfer the case from Solapur to Nagpur as the head office of the bank was shifted to the Nagpur. However, no action whatsoever was taken on the request of the assessee and the Assessing Officer issued another notice u/s. 144 of the Act in the name of erstwhile Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank. The said notice is at page 10 of the paper book. Finally, the Assessing Officer made assessment order u/s. 144 in the name of non-

On the other hand Shri Pankaj Garg representing the Department vehemently defended the impugned order. The ld. DR submitted that the return was filed in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank and hence, the assessment was made in the name of aforesaid bank. The assessee failed to submit copy of notification vide which Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank was merged with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was right in making assessment in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank.

We have heard the submissions made by representatives of rival sides and have perused the orders of authorities below. The assessee in appeal has challenged the validity of assessment order on jurisdictional issue. The contention of the assessee is that the assessment has been made in the name of non-existing entity. The sequence of events that have emerged from the documents on record are tabulated hereunder : Date Events 24-09-2011 Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank filed return of income. 28-02-2013 Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank amalgamated with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank by Ministry of Finance, Government of India notification. 08-11-2013 The assessee (Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank) informed the Assessing Officer that Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank has been amalgamated with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank, since, the headquarter of the assessee is located at Nagpur the case be shifted to Nagpur. 09-12-2013 Notice u/s. 142(1) issued to the assessee in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank. 20-12-2013 The assessee again informed the Assessing Officer about amalgamation of erstwhile Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank with Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank and also requested for shifting assessment to Nagpur. 05-03-2014 Notice u/s. 142(1) r.w.s. 144 issued by the Assessing Officer in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank. 11-03-2014 Assessment order u/s. 144 passed by Assessing Officer in the name of Wainganga Krishna Gramin Bank.

It is a well settled law that the assessment cannot be made in the name of dead person or dissolved/amalgamated company. In the present case, the assessee had informed about amalgamation of Wainganga

The Hon‟ble Delhi High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dimension Apparels (.) Ltd. (supra) has held that the assessment made on dissolved/amalgamated company is invalid. Even if amalgamating company participated in the assessment proceedings, the jurisdictional defect is incurable and the provisions of section 292B cannot validate the same. Thus, in view of the facts of the case and the well

Since, the assessee succeeds on legal issue, raised in grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, the other ground Nos. 2 to 5 raised in appeal have become academic and hence, not deliberated upon.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed.