“doctrine of merger”

MiscellaneousDoctrine of MergerDoctrine of Merger303 judgments

The decision most relied on for doctrine of merger is Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala (245 ITR 360), cited in 361 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on doctrine of merger

Kunhayammed v. State of Kerala

245 ITR 360 · 2000 · Supreme Court

361

citing judgments

An order refusing special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, whether speaking or non-speaking, does not attract the doctrine of merger, meaning the order under challenge is not substituted.

1. AIR 1951 SC 467: HARLA v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN. 2

2 SCC 453 · 1997 · Reported

222

citing judgments

When an appeal or revision is filed against an order passed by a subordinate forum, and a superior forum modifies, reverses, or affirms that decision, the order of the subordinate forum merges into the superior forum's decision, which then becomes the sole operative and enforceable order.

CIT v. Alagendran Finance Ltd.

293 ITR 1 · 2007 · Supreme Court

129

citing judgments

The limitation period for initiating revision proceedings under Section 263 concerning matters not subject to reassessment begins from the date of the original assessment order, not the reassessment order. The doctrine of merger does not apply to issues not examined during reassessment proceedings.

Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of Tamil Nadu

263 ITR 658 · 2003 · Supreme Court

122

citing judgments

The doctrine of merger applies when appellate jurisdiction is invoked, causing the operative part of a lower court's order or decree to merge into the superior court's order, whether it reverses, modifies, or affirms the original decision. The application of this doctrine depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order, the scope of statutory provisions, and the subject matter challenged.

CIT v. Shri Arbuda Mills Ltd.

231 ITR 50 · 1998 · Supreme Court

citing judgments

The Commissioner's revisional powers under Section 263, as clarified by Explanation (c) of Section 263(1) (retrospectively inserted by the Finance Act, 1989), extend to and are deemed always to have extended to matters that were not considered and decided in an appeal. This means the CIT can revise an order even if it was appealed, provided the specific issue under revision was not part of the appeal proceedings.

Jeevanlal (1929) Ltd. v. ACIT

108 ITR 407 · 1977 · High Court

citing judgments

A revision order under section 263 is invalid if it is based solely on an audit objection without independent application of mind by the Commissioner. The Assessing Officer must apply their own mind rather than relying on audit party notes.

Employees’ Welfare Assn. v. Union of India

4 SCC 187 · 1989 · Reported

citing judgments

Dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in limine does not amount to a declaration of law under Article 141 of the Constitution, nor does it confirm the view of the lower court.

Shapoorji Pallonji Mistry v. CIT

34 ITR 342 · 1958 · High Court

citing judgments

An appellate authority cannot enhance income on an issue that was not the subject matter of the original assessment proceedings. The appellate authority is empowered to decide any matter arising in the assessment proceedings, even if not raised in the appeal, provided it is covered by the order appealed against.

Judgments citing doctrine of merger

S Gandhi Jewellery Private Limited, Indore vs. PCIT-1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 311/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore21 Feb 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaassessment Year: 2017-18 S. Gandhi Jewellery Pcit-1, Private Limited, Indore C/O Adv. Hitesh Chimnani, बनाम/ Ug-37 Trade Centre, Vs. 18, South Tukoganj, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aamcs1613G Assessee By Shri Hitesh Chimnani, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.02.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21.02.2025

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

against the order dated 29.03.2022 and was pending before him on the same subject matter is bad-in-law considering the doctrine of merger. This issue has been dealt with by the assessee on pgs 116-118 of the paper book and by the Id. PCIT on pages ... merged in the order of CIT(A) and the PCIT did not have jurisdiction to take up revisionary action u/s 263 due to ‘doctrine of merger’ as provided in Explanation 1(c) to section 263(1) reading as under: “Explanation 1. – For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared

The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Kumbakonam vs. CIT (Appeals)

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 584/CHNY/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.583/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2013-14 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.584/Chny/2024, Assessment Year: 2020-21 The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of No.150, T.S.R. Big Street, Income Tax (Appeals), Kumbakonam, Circle-1, Kumbakonam. Tamil Nadu-612001. [Pan: Aaaat0148B] (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

controversy is whether the law permits the assessee to do so now. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that by way of Doctrine of merger the order dated 22.03.2016 had merged with the order dated 12.03.2022 and hence it is entitled to contest the addition under bad debts made ... Ld.AO on account of bad debts, the same cannot now be contested in a roundabout manner by invoking the hypothesis of doctrine of merger. Merely because the Ld. AO has reopened the assessment on connected matter and proceeded to conclude that no further addition is required to be made would

The Kumbakonam Central Cooperative Bank, Kumbakonam vs. CIT (Appeals)

In the result the appeals of the assessee are decided as under:-

ITA 583/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr.Varun Ranganathan,Advocate for Mr.Ravi Kannan, AdvocateFor Respondent: A.Sasikumar, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)

Shri Rajendra J Keshwani (HUF), Ahmedabad vs. The Pr. CIT- Central, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 118/AHD/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.118/Ahd/2021 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Rajendra J. Keshwani The Pr.Cit बनाम/ (Huf) Central Circle V/S. 44, Asopalav Bungalows Ahmedabad Nr.Mukthidham Jain Temple Thaltej – 380 054 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaehk 1973 J अपीलाथ%/ (Appellant) &' यथ%/ (Respondent) ….. Assessee By : Shri M.K. Patel, Advocate Revenue By : Shri V. Nandakumar, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri M.K. Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 263Section 68

Section 115BBE(2) of the Act. 6.1. In our considered view, the revisionary order passed by the PCIT is unsustainable in law. The doctrine of merger is well established and has been upheld by various judicial pronouncements which categorically held that once an assessment order is adjudicated upon

Hsbc Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Mumbai-4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 2586/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Ms. Krupa Gandhi, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, Ld. D.R

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 154Section 263

order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment. Further, the contention of the department with respect to the applicability of the doctrine of merger was also 6 M/s. HSBC Securities and Capital Markets (India) Private Limited rejected. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereunder ... were in respect of the matters other than the allowance of 'lease equalization fund. The said finding of fact is binding on us Doctrine of merger, therefore, in the fact situation obtaining herein cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. It is not a case where the subject matter

Axis Carriers and Logistics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax, 14(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5846/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm & Shri. Omkareshwar Chidara, Am Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd. Deputy Commissioner Of Income 803, B Kukreja Palace, Vallabh Baug Tax, 14(1)(1) Lane, Ghatkopar East, Mumbai – Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Churchgate, 400075. Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No. Aadca9585A (Assessee) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri. Rakesh Milwani Respondent By : Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2025 O R D E R Per Kavitha Rajagopal, J M: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee, Challenging The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘Ld. Cit(A)’ For Short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short) Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act'), Pertaining To The Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ For Short) 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. Considering The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, It Is Submitted That Once An Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter, For The Sake Of Brevity, Referred To As "The Act'), The Intimation Of Processing Of Return Of Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act Ceases To Be In Force & Cannot Be Acted Upon Having Merged With Order Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & Therefore Additions Made While Processing Return Of Income Cease To Exist Once Order Is Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act & The Additions Made To The Income U/S 143(1) Of The Act & Demands Raised Thereon Ought To Be Deleted. Axis Carriers & Logistics Ltd.

For Appellant: Shri. Rakesh MilwaniFor Respondent: Shri. Ram Krishn Kedia (Sr. DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

cannot be sustained subsequent to the passing of the assessment order dated 29.07.2021 for the year under consideration as the principles of doctrine of merger would be applicable. The ld. AR relied on the following decisions. a. “National Stock Exchange of India Ltd. vs. DCIT Circle 7(1)(1), Mumbai ... issue in Section 143(3) was different than the disallowance made in Section 143(1) proceeding. The ld. DR further contended that doctrine of merger would not be applicable in the present case, where the ld. AO has not dealt with the same issue in the Section 143(1) intimation

Penang Enterprises Private Limited (Erstwhile Known As Samarth Life Sciences Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT 8(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4530/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai15 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Smt. Renu Jauhripenang Enterprises Pvt. V/S. Assessment Unit, Income Ltd. (Erstwhile Known As बनाम Tax Department, Samarth Life Sciences Pvt. Room No. 524, Aayakar Ltd.) Bhavan, M.K. Road, 2Nd Floor, Samarth House, Mumbai-400020 Ram Mandir Road, Goregaon West, Mumbai-400104 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcs4014L Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Mr. Snehal ShahFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Pemnani

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

assessee has filed an appeal before us. 5. Before us, Ld. AR has pointed out that the Ld. CIT(A) wrongly invoked doctrine of merger and declined to consider the adjustments made u/s 143(1) which were contested during the appellate proceedings. It was pointed out that

Shri Vijay Kumar Patel, Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax, Raipur-1, Raipur

ITA 212/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 212/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Sakshi Gopal Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 147Section 263Section 271(1)(c)Section 271ASection 68

response to the aforesaid show cause notice, the assessee furnished a reply before the Ld. Pr. CIT on 28.11.2023, stating that as per doctrine of merger, it is well settled law that when the impugned addition is subject matter of appeal, then Ld. Pr. CIT cannot exercise his revision power ... addition u/s 68 in treating the sale transaction as bogus was the subject matter of appeal. Ld. AR further argued that, as per doctrine of merger, according to settled law the impugned addition which is subject matter of appeal cannot be the basis for exercising the revisionary powers

Mithalal Bhawarlal Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO WD - 19(2)(3), Mumbai

ITA 1131/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms Padmavathy S, Am & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh & Ms. ShivaliFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 40A(7)

depositing the contribution as per section 10 of General Clauses Act, 1897. 5. The ld. DR on the other hand submitted that the doctrine of merger does not apply to assessee's case since in the assessment order passed under section 143(3) the issue of delayed remittance of PF/ESI

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 929/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

assessee was not in appeal against Section 143(1) order, Section 143(3) order commences with Section 143(1) order and therefore the doctrine of merger would be applicable in this case and hence, the same is a valid ground for adjudication. 21. The ld. DR on the other hand ... assessment by incorporating the adjustments made vide MSC Agency (India) Private Limited vs. ACIT intimation u/s. 143(1) of the Act. The doctrine of merger would not be applicable unless the assessment order is passed with the discussions on the issues pertaining to the intimation

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 928/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

Msc Agency (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Cir-2(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 927/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 37(1)

The Chorode Service Co-Op Bank Ltd Ll139, Chorode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 123/COCH/2024[AY 2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

unless the Assessing Authority, while passing the 143(3) order had specifically dwelt upon the addition of Rs. 6,18,71,520/-, the 'doctrine of merger' which sub-sumes the lesser order i.e. 143(1) order into the larger order i.e. 143(3) order is not applicable. This

The Chorode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Ll139, Chorode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 122/COCH/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Nov 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Amarjit Singh

For Appellant: Sri.V.S.Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Dr.S.Pandian, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 246ASection 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Mr. Bipinchandra Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 23 (1) (6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2933/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Nishit GandhiFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(47)Section 234BSection 250Section 56Section 56(2)(x)

property from the owner, the lease is extinguished as the same person cannot at the same time be both landlord and tenant. The doctrine of merger applies resulting in ‘drowning’ and ‘sinking’ of inferior right into superior right. There is a complete union of the interest of the lessor

DCIT, CC-I, Chandigarh vs. Valco Industries Ltd., Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 574/CHANDI/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: The Hon'Ble Punjab & Haryana High Court? Ii) Whether On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Cit(A) Is Right Holding Such Consequential Order As Void An Initio Ignoring The Facts That Order Passed By Ld. Pcit (Central), Gurugram U/S 263 Has Not Attained Its Finality? Iii) Whether On The Facts & In Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Was Right In Holding That Consequential Order Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 263 Of The Act As Void As Initio Without Giving Any Liberty To The Revenue To Revive The Proceedings Consequent To Any Directions Or Order

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80I

which is nothing but arbitrariness and mis- appreciation of facts on the part of the Ld. Pr.CIT. In view of the Doctrine of Merger, as argued by the Ld. AR and as also settled judicial precedents, it is our considered view that the Ld. Pr.CIT should have been cautious while ... passing the impugned order because, apparently, the Ld. Pr.CIT has not considered the aspect of Doctrine of Merger at all. 5.21 In the case of CIT Vs. Nirma Chemical Works Pvt. Ltd., reported in (2009) 309 ITR 67 (Guj.), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court had dealt at some length

Mstc Ltd, Kolkata vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Cir-1(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 623/KOL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Oct 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Prasun Bhattacharya, ARFor Respondent: Shri Manjeet Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 154Section 250

channels of rectification and appeal have been availed by the assessee. 8. However, in this context, it is relevant to examine the doctrine of merger. The intimation u/s 143(1)(a) of the Act is separately appealable to the Ld. CIT(A) under section 246A ... assessment years 1990-91, 1992-93, 1993-94 and 1994-95 were to be quashed. [Para 21] 11. The doctrine of merger is a common law doctrine that is rooted in the idea of maintenance of the decorum of hierarchy of courts and tribunals, the doctrine is based

Mcleod Russel India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 984/KOL/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm]

Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 197(9)Section 263Section 263(2)Section 37(1)

revising the order of assessment which relate to Lease Equalisation Fund. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the doctrine of merger did not apply to a case of this nature and the period of limitation commenced from the date of original assessment and not from the date of reassessment

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Shilp Gravures Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 798/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Division Bench, Ahmedabad Has Arisen

For Appellant: Shri S N Divatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 8Section 80I

Since the SLP filed by Revenue under Article 136 stood dismissed in limine by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the doctrine of merger shall not apply. Reference is drawn to judgment and order of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case Kunhayammad v. State of Kerala

Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad vs. Lakshmi Narayana Turairao, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 232/HYD/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(3)Section 2(14)Section 54B

unsettle the settled issue". Since the Hon'ble High Court has given its decision in favour of the assessee, applying the principle of Doctrine of Merger, the decision of Tribunal in the case of Srinivasa Pandit (HUF) (supra) will merge in the High Court's order. 5. Considering the above