SHRI RAM MULTICOM PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. A.C.I.T., CC - 3(4), , KOLKATA
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the AO was invalid and a nullity because the AO lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal noted that the bank accounts in question were part of the merged company's balance sheet.
What were the facts?
The assessee, a partnership firm, merged with Shri Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.04.2008. Despite the merger, an assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act by the ACIT, Circle 3(4), Kolkata, which did not have jurisdiction over the merged entity.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment framed by the AO under Section 144 was valid when the assessee firm had already merged with another company and the AO lacked jurisdiction.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 09.01.2025 for the AY 2017-18.
The issue raised in first ground of appeal is against the assessment framed by the ACIT Circle 3(4), Kolkata u/s 144 of the Act dated 31.12.2019, without having jurisdiction over the assessee although, the assessee firm merged with Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd. (PAN No. AAECS5277N) by an agreement dated 01.04.2008 and therefore, the assessment passed is invalid and nullity.
The ld. CIT (A) affirmed the order of ld. AO without giving any concrete finding on the ground that the PAN of Shri Ram Distributors is still active and therefore the appeal is not maintainable.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessee firm was merged with Shri Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 01.04.2008, taking over all the assets and liabilities and thereafter the assessee firm discontinued filing of its return of income as it ceased to exist from that date. We note that the assessee has incorporated all the assets and liabilities in the books of accounts of Shri Ram Multicom Pvt. Ltd. including the bank accounts. The assessee has produced before us ITR-6, filed by the said company and in the details of bank accounts, we observed that the bank account on the basis of which the ld. AO made the addition i.e. Axis bank account no.1720102004947 was appearing in the assets in balance sheet of the said company. Thus, this is abundantly clear that the deposits into the said bank account have been considered in the
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10.07.2025.
More judgments on Section 142(1)
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Subhash Chand Saini, Jaipur vs ITO Ward, Behror, BherorITA 36/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Gaurav Jiteshbhai Joshi, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1000/RJT/2026[2022-23]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2022-23
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Mascot Constructions Co. And Another vs. The Commissioner Of Goods And Services Tax (GST) And AnotherBombay · 22 Oct 2026