DCIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. HENKEL INDIA LTD., MUMBAI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the penalty order was void ab initio as it was passed on a non-existent entity. The Assessing Officer was aware of the merger prior to passing the assessment and penalty orders.
What were the facts?
The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which held a penalty order under Section 271(1)(c) as void. The penalty was levied on M/s. Henkel India Ltd. (M/s. HIL) after its merger with M/s. Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. (M/s. JLL).
What were the issues?
Whether a penalty order passed on a merged entity, which was non-existent at the time of passing the order, is valid. Whether Section 292B can come to the rescue of such a penalty order.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(3)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- 247 CTR 500 (Delhi), (c) CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P.) Ltd.98 citing370 ITR 288 · 2015 · HC
- Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT79 citing186 ITR 278 · 1990 · SC · Read judgment
- CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd.10 citing40 ITR 38 · 1960 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-17, Chennai, in dated 30.03.2016 for the AY 2010-11. CO No.120/Mds/2016 is a Cross-Objection filed by the assessee in the Revenue’s Appeal No.2054/Mds/2016.
Mr.M.N.Maurya, CIT represented on behalf of the Respondent and Ms.Priyanka Jain, Adv., represented on behalf of the Appellant.
It was submitted by the Ld.DR that M/s.Henkel India Ltd., (in short “M/s.HIL”) was engaged in the business of manufacturing of synthetic detergents, toiletries, etc. It had filed return of income for the relevant AY disclosing ‘Nil’ income. The assessment came to be completed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144C(3) on 28.05.2014 after making adjustments on account of the TPO adjustment, disallowance of the loss on sale of fixed assets and disallowance of the wrong claim of VRS compensation. As a consequence of the assessment and the assessee having not filed any appeal against the Assessment Order penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was levied to an amount of Rs.10.00 Cr. It was a submission that against the penalty levied, the assessee had preferred an appeal to the Ld.CIT(A) who had held that the penalty order was null and void on the ground that the penalty order was passed on a non-existent entity M/s.HIL. It was a submission that the assessee had not intimated the AO regarding the merger of the & CO No.120/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:
assessee, M/s.HIL with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be reversed.
In reply, the Ld.AR submitted that the assessee, M/s.HIL had filed the return for the relevant AY on 30.09.2010. M/s.HIL had subsequently changed its name to M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd. It was a further submission that on the basis of the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court at Mumbai dated 12.04.2013, M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd., formerly known as M/s.HIL, which was merged as M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. (in short “M/s.JLL”) and the effective date was 01.04.2012. It was a submission that the Assessment Order was completed on 28.05.2014. The penalty u/s.271(1)(c) was initiated vide notice dated 28.05.2014 and the penalty order was passed on 28.11.2014. The Ld.AR drew our attention to Page No.253 & 254 of Paper Book which were copies of the letters issued by M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. to the DCIT, Company Circle-8(2), Mumbai dated 15.05.2013 and to the ACIT, Large Tax Payer Unit, Chennai dated 19.11.2013 intimating the merger of M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd., Mumbai with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd., Mumbai and the appointed date was 01.04.2012. Further, the Ld.AR drew our attention to Page No.110 of the Paper Book which is a copy of the TPO’s Order dated 03.09.2013 wherein he has recorded and addressed a letter to the Principal Officer, M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd. (formerly known as M/s.HIL) and now merged with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. The Ld.AR submitted that the fact of the re-name of M/s.HIL and its merger with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. was very well known to the AO much before the completion of the Assessment Order.
It was a submission that the AO had held that the penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) was null and void by following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the & CO No.120/Mds/2016 :- 4 -: case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT: 186 ITR 278 and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT-III v. Dimension Apparels (P)
Ltd: [2015] 370 ITR 288 (Delhi) and the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of CIT v. Express Newspapers Ltd: [1960] 40 ITR 38 and also the decision of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Madras in the case of P.S.Kandaswamy Mudaliar Vs. CIT [1969] 72 ITR 212 to hold that the penalty order passed without levying penalty on non-existence person. It was a submission that the order of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be upheld.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of Page No.110 of the Paper Book which is a copy of the letter of the TPO which clearly shows that the TPO was well aware of the merger of M/s.HIL with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. A perusal of the letters addressed by M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. to the AO at Page No.254 also clearly shows that the AO was intimated much before the passing of the Assessment Order regarding the merger of M/s.HIL having changed it’s name to M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd. and the same having merged with M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. This being so, the issuance of show cause notice on M/s.HIL re-named as M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd., was in fact, notice on a non-existence person as on the date on the issuance of notice.
Consequently, the penalty order passed is on non-existence person is void ab initio. In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Ltd. v. CIT referred to supra.
Even assuming that the provisions of Sec.292B could be called to the rescue, still a perusal of the PAN number recorded in the Assessment Order and also in the penalty order and the demand notices shows that the PAN number & CO No.120/Mds/2016 :- 5 -:
recorded is that of M/s.Jyothy Consumer Products Ltd. formerly known as M/s.HIL and not the PAN number of M/s.Jyothy Laboratories Ltd. Consequently, the provisions of Sec.292B will also not come to the rescue of the said penalty order. In these circumstances, we find no error in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) which calls for any interference. Consequently, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) stands confirmed.
In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is stands dismissed and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee in Appeal No.2054/Mds/2016 is stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on June 20, 2017, at Chennai.
More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)
- Ajaybhai Dineshbhai Bagdai, Near Central… vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), New…ITA 74/RJT/2026[2013-14]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2013-14
- Shalin Jayantbhai Desai, Vadodara vs ACIT, Circle-4(2), Vadodara Present…ITA 2569/AHD/2026[2010-11]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2010-11
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2370/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Hetal Vinodchandra Sheth, Ahmedabad vs The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), AhmedabadITA 2369/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Biswanath Rana vs. The Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Sushama Mishra vs. The Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, KatakOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- Saudamini Samantray vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Bhubaneswar IiOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Keshav Rice Mill, Ganjam vs. Chief Commissioner, CT And GST, Odisha, KatakaOrissa · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Nanda Contruction PVT. LTD., Angul vs. Additional Commissioner, GST And Central Excise Commissionerate, SundergarhOrissa · 28 Oct 2026