“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

V.Natarajan, Rasipuram vs. ACIT Central Circle, Salem

The appeals stand allowed in terms of our above order

ITA 467/CHNY/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri V. Durga Rao & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.467/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2015-16) & आयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.468/Chny/2021 (िनधा1रण वष1 / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Shri V.Natarajan Acit बनाम/ 64C, Rotary Nagar, Central Circle, Vs. Rasipuram -637 408. Salem. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Acgpn-1477-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : ( !थ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (Ca)-Ld. Ar !थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, (Cit)-Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 15-11-2022 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 30-11-2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal ():

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman (CA)-Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, (CIT)-Ld. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 263

perspective. 4. The order of the AO has merged with the proceedings before the first Appellate authority, which is pending and applying the doctrine of merger there is no jurisdiction for the PCIT to invoke the provisions of section 263 of the ACT. 5. In view of the above grounds ... proceedings and the requisite details were furnished by the assessee in support of its claim. Another argument raised by Ld. AR is that doctrine of merger would apply since the assessment order is subject matter of challenge before first appellate authority on legal grounds as well as on merits. Therefore

Mohideen Gafoor, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(3), Chennai

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

ITA 137/CHNY/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri N V Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R. Mohan Reddy, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

noted that the Explanation ‘C’ deals with the powers of CIT in revision, which is clear and unambiguous, as in terms thereof, the doctrine of merger applies only in respect of special items which were the subject matter of appeal and not in respect of those where were ... 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

Indian Co-Op Network for Women Ltd, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 104/CHNY/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Nov 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunatha

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Adivarahan, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. Maruthu Pandian, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

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 ... answer the question which has been referred." We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the doctrine of merger will have no application. 14. The Madras High Court in A.K. Thanga Pillai (supra), in our opinion, has rightly considered the matter albeit under Section

The State Bank of Patiala, Patiala vs. ACIT, Patiala

ITA 538/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

Bank of Patialia) ITA No.510, 538 and 1259/Chandi./2017 not render the decision of Hon‟ble Court to be non-binding and the doctrine of merger would still be applicable. In any case, we find that the Hon‟ble Madras High Court in the aforesaid decision concurred with the legal

The State Bank of India (Successor to State Bank of Patiala), Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

ITA 1259/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai10 Nov 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar, Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri P.J. Pardiwala Sr. Adv. a/wFor Respondent: Shri A.B. Koli, CIT DR

Section 36(1)(viia)

ACIT- CC- 3(3), Cr- 3, Mumb vs. M/S. Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd.(Erstwhile 'Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Ltd'.), Mumbai

ITA 2561/MUM/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Oct 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2561/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 2. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 2560/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Asst. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. Inocome Tax-Cc-3(3), (Erstwhile Bhadrawati Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ispat & Energy Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Air Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town India Building, Nariman Solaris, N. S. Phadke Point, Mumbai-400021 Marg, Mumbai-400 069 स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aadcr1238F (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : 3. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 697/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2013-14) & 4. आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 698/Mum/2022 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Dy. Commissioner Of M/S Candor Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Income Tax-Cc-3(3), Bhadrawati Ispat & Energy Central Range-3, बनाम/ Ltd) R. No. 1923, 19Th Floor, Vs. 404, 4Th Floor, Hub Town Air India Building, Solaris, N. S. Phadke Marg, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 069 Mumbai-400021 (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) :

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay V. DeshmukhFor Respondent: Shri Mani Jain & Prateek

Section 153ASection 68

been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply. But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution ... subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court. However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger." 5.31 In light of the clear binding decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court on same facts, the assessment order passed

Dharmista Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO 34(1)(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1885/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Oct 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyaldr. Dharmista Mehta 22/5, Walchand Terraces, Opp. A.C. Market, Tardeo, Mumbai - 400043. Pan: Aafpm5272R ...... Appellant Vs. Ito-34(1) (3), Income Tax Office Building, Pratyakshakar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Satish Mody Respondent By : Smt. Mahita Nair, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 18/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/10/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-46, Mumbai [Hereinafter Referred To As [‘Cit(A)’] Dated 31.01.2017 Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As [‘The Act’] For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Sh. Satish ModyFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 54

Supreme Court becomes an order appealed against. Any order passed thereafter would be an appellate order and would attract the applicability of doctrine of merger. It would not make a difference whether the order is one of reversal or of modification or of dismissal affirming the order appealed against

Shapoorji Pallonji and Company Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Principle Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), -4, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1149/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 14ASection 263Section 92C

prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. The proceedings for reassessment have nothing to do with the said head of income. Doctrine of merger, therefore, would not apply in a case of this nature. 8. Furthermore, Explanation (c) appended to sub-section (1) of section ... clear and unambiguous as in terms thereof doctrine of merger applies only in respect of such items which were the subject-matter of appeal and not which were not. The question came up for consideration before this Court in CIT v. Sun Engg. Works

Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai-4

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/CHNY/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Sept 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.27/Chny/2022 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sivakumaran Pugazhendhi, The Principal Commissioner 70 Raja Agraharam Street, Vs. Of Income Tax, Poonamalle, Chennai-4. Chennai – 600 056. [Pan: Aiapp-7309-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri M. Rajan, Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.09.2022 : 21.09.2022 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri M. Rajan, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

matter of the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3). 4. For that the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax failed to appreciate that the doctrine of merger does not apply where the subject matter of reassessment and of the original order of assessment is not one and the same ... prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue. The proceedings for reassessment have nothing to do with the said head of income. Doctrine of merger, therefore, would not apply in a case of this nature. 8. Furthermore, Explanation (c) appended to Sub-section (1) of Section

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. JCIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1041/MUM/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

High Court in the case of S. Arthanari v. First Income-tax Officer, Salem [1972] 83 ITR 828 (Mad). The application of the doctrine of merger, however, depends on the nature of the appellate or revisional order in each case and the scope of the statutory provision conferring M/s. Edelweiss

M/S Edelweiss Rural & Corporate Services Private Limited (Earlier Know As M/S Edelweiss Commodities Services Limited), Mumbai vs. ACIT Central Circle-1(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 1040/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2012-13

Section 127(2)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147

Alia Premedia Services Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. Dy CIT Circle- 14 (1)(1), Mumbai

In the result both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 7814/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Sh. Bhaumik GodaFor Respondent: Sh. Mehul Jain, Sr.DR

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 3Section 36(1)(ii)Section 37Section 391

pitching for the conditions applicable to sec 37 of the Act. 10 ITA No. 7814/Mum/2019 (A.Y. 2015-16) 16. As per the “Doctrine of merger” once an order u/s 250 of the Act passed by the CIT (A) order of the AO gets merged into that order. In this case

Hindustan Construction Company, Mumbai vs. Pr. CIT-6, Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 969/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri H. P. MahajaniFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 263(2)

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 ... revenue. But the proceedings for reassessment had nothing to do with the said head of income. The Supreme Court clearly held that the doctrine of merger was not attracted to a case of that nature. The Supreme Court followed its earlier judgment in CIT v. Sun Engg

Shri Balkrishna Vithal Shinde, Mumbai vs. ITO 28(1) (2), Mumbai

ITA 1753/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No. 1753/Mum/2021 (ननधधारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2011-12) Ito-28(1)(2), Shri Balkrishna Vithal Mumbai-400 703 Shinde A-9, Ganga Tower Co-Op बनाम/ Housing Society, Plot Vs. No. 40A, Sector-16, Vashi, Navi Mumbai -400 703, स्थधयीलेखधसं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan No. Aaips4294A (अपीलधथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलधथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. Ar प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Chetan M. Kacha, Ld. Dr सुनवधईकीतधरीख/ : 03.08.2022 Date Of Hearing घोर्णधकीतधरीख / : 24.08.2022 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Amit Shukla: The Aforesaid Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Impugned Order Dated 24.02.2020, Passed By Ld. Cit(A)-26

For Appellant: Shri B. N. Rao, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Chetan M. Kacha

Section 144Section 264Section 69ASection 80C

along with condonation for delay. 6.2 In the backdrop of the above facts, it is pertinent to reflect upon the application of Doctrine of Merger in the instant case. As explained by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Khoday Distilleries Ltd, vs. Mahadeshwara Sahakara Sakkare Karkhane ... forum. 6.3 In the instant case, the impugned assessment order had merged into the order of the Pr. CIT and therefore, applying the Doctrine of Merger, the appeal before the CIT(A) against the order of the AO becomes non-maintainable. Once the assessee has exercised the provisions of section

National Stock Exchange Investor Protection Fund Trust, Mumbai vs. Dy.CIT (Exemption) -2(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2311/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2022AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Jehangi D. MistryFor Respondent: Dr. Mahesh Akhade (DR)

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 13(9)Section 139Section 139(1)Section 142Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)

Moreover, we note that the AO has passed the scrutiny assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2017. Therefore, by application of doctrine of merger, the impugned adjustment by CPC dated 22.03.2017 stands merged with the assessment order dated 20.12.2017 and only scrutiny assessment 5 A.Y. 2015-16 National

Mindlogicx Infratec Limited, Bengaluru vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad

In the result, all these appeals by the assessee are allowed

ITA 483/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Jul 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri.Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri. Hemanth, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Narayana. K. R, Addl. DIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 154Section 200Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 201Section 206CSection 234E

levy c) of late filing fee can be challenged by assailing the order passed under 154 of the Act in terms of doctrine of merger since the subsequent rectification order which reiterated the levy of late filing fee merges with the original intimation as the subject matter being the same