Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
$-8-13 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 190, 191, 192, 193, 194 & 197/2014 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-II Appellant Through: Mr. Kamal Sawhney, Sr. Standing Counsel withMr. Raghvendra, Jr. Standing Counsel, Mr. Mukul Mathur and Mr. Shikhar Garg, Advocates. versus N.J. STEELS PVT. LTD Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.K.GAUBA ORDER 0/„ 18.05.2015 The Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ("ITAT") dated 19.02.2013 - made for AYs 2003-04 - 2008-09. It is contended that the ITAT fall into error in holding in the circumstances of the case that the assessments made were nullity in law. The brief facts are that search and seizure operations were conducted under Section 132 in the case of three individuals Mr. B.K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam and M/s Madhusudan Buildings Pvt. Ltd. on 20.10.2008. Apparently, the AO formed an opinion that certain materials found in the course of the search proceedmgs Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified
r\ m\j belonged to other parties and issued notice inter alia to one NJ. Steels Pvt. Ltd. During the pendency ofthose proceedings, the N.J. Steels. Pvt. Ltd. were amalgamated with M/s Life Time Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. in terms of an order ofthis Court under the Companies Act on 19.02.2010. This fact was brought to the notice of the AO who nevertheless without issuing fresh notice to the transferee company, i.e., Lifetime Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., proceeded to frame assessments in respect ofthe erstwhile assessee, i.e., N.J. Steels Pvt. Ltd. The appeal to the CIT (A) succeeded. The Revenue felt aggrieved approached the ITAT which rejected its appeal reasoning as follows: - "8. We have carefully considered the submission in this regard andperused the records. Wefully concur with the finding ofthe Ld Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A)^ that a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act is ajuristic person. It takes its birth and gets life with incorporation and it dies with the dissolution as per the provision of the Companies Act. On amalgamation, the company seizes to exist in the eyes of the law. Thus, assessment upon a dissolved company is impermissible as there is no provisions in Income Tax Act to make an assessment thereupon. Ld Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A) in our view, has therefore, rightly held that assessment on a company which has been dissolved by amalgamation u/s 391 and 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 is invalid Admittedly, assessee company in the present case stood dissolved on 28.09.2010 on amalgamation with MJs Life Time Buildcom P Ltd. and the assessment order in the present case was framed on 31.12.2010. Hence, we uphold the order of the Ld. Commissioner ofIncome Tax (A).
In view ofthe abovefinding on the maintainability ofthe assessment order itself which has been held to be anullity, the issue raised in the order grounds ofappeals preferred by the revenues and cross objection raised by the assessee have become infructuous and they do not need adjudication." We noticed at the outset that the facts of this case are closely similar ifnot entirely identical with the decision ofthis Court in Spice Entertainment Limited vs CIT, (ITA 475/2011): reported in 2012
(280) ELT 43 followed by this Court in CIT, (C)-II v. Micra India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA 441/2013), decided on 22.01.2015. Given that there is no dispute that the AO was informed about the amalgamation during the pendency of the assessment itself, framing of assessment was in the circumstances unsupportable in law and anullity. We find no reason to interfere with the order ofthe ITAT. The appeals are accordingly dismissed as unmerited. MAY 18, 2015 IvikasI S.RAVINDRABHAT, J R.K.GAUBA, J