“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

Glitch Media Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax - 1(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2178/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 250Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)

expenditure. Erroneous additions/disallowance considered as per the intimation dated 18 December 2021 issued under section 143(1) of the Act Applicability of doctrine of merger 5. failed to appreciate that the theory of doctrine of merger was applicable in the present case and consequently, the intimation dated 18 December

Asirvad Micro Finance Limited, Anna Salai vs. Che-C(1)-251, Nungambakkam, Chennai

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

ITA 1138/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1138/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Prasanna Varma, F.C.A & MrFor Respondent: Shri Bipin C.N, CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

assessee had in principle agitated before the Ld.CIT(A) the adjustments made to its income vide order u/s 143(1). Thus, as the doctrine of merger does not happen in the orders passed u/s 143(1) and section 143(3), given the fact that both are separately appealable orders

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.2165, Karumaloor vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 348/COCH/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

power of revision. 6. On due consideration of the explanation offered by the appellant society the Pr. CIT further stated that the doctrine of merger has no application to the facts of the case, inasmuch as, the subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A) is distinct ... before the CIT(A). Therefore the Pr. CIT ought not have exercised jurisdiction in view of the provisions of section 263 and the doctrine of merger. 9. On the other hand, ld. CIT-DR, placing reliance on the order u/s. 263 submits that the order passed

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd.No.863, Aluva vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 347/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Kadungalloor Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd. No.2165, Karumaloor vs. Income Tax Officer, Aluva

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 346/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Mathew Joseph, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Rajyadharpara Chandpur Samabay Krishi Unnayan Samity Limited, Purba Bardhaman vs. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Burdwan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2671/KOL/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shyamadas Bandyopadhyay, FCAFor Respondent: Smt. Madhumita Das, Sr. DR

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

limited to bringing to tax the income which has escaped assessment, made originally inter alia u/s 143(3) and the theory of doctrine of merger does not apply in the case of assessment made u/s 143(3) originally and the assessment made subsequently u/s 143(3)/147. Both these assessments

F5 Networks Innovation Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-17(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 912/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao & ShriFor Respondent: Shri Narender Kumar Naik

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 92C

have been disallowed. 31.2 The learned AR also submits that the DRP's conclusion that it lacks jurisdiction is incorrect, as the doctrine of merger of intimation order ITA No.912/Hyd/2024 14 with the assessment order should have been applied in this case. The learned AR, therefore, urges us to grant

Taskus India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2826/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jun 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2022-23 M/S Taskus India Pvt. Ltd., 1. Dy. Director Of Income- Ttc Industrial Area, Tower -9, Tax Central Processing Vs. Gigaplex It Park, 18Th & 19Th Centre Unit, Bengaluru, Floor, Midc, Plot No. 1 I.T.5, 1St Floor, Prestige Alpha Airoli Knowledge Park Rd, Airoli, No 48/1, 48/2 Navi Mumbai-400708. Beratenaagrahara Begur Hosur Rd Uttarahali Hobli, Bengaluru- 560100. 2. The Dy. Cit, Circle 8(3)(1), Mumbai. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400020. Pan No. Aahct 0980 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Tata Krishna

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 246A(1)(a)Section 80ASection 80J

find merit in the submission of the learned authorised the submission of the learned authorised representative of the appellant that the doctrine of merger, as representative of the appellant that the doctrine of merger, as representative of the appellant that the doctrine of merger, as judicially settled, does not operate

Universal Biomass Energy Private Limited, Guruharsahai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(1), Ferozepur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 267/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar24 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Udayan Dasgupta & Sh. Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 246ASection 250Section 80I

Supreme Court in the Kunhayammedv. State of Kerala 113 Taxmann 470 (SC) 245 ITR 360 dated 19.07.2000, has aptly summed up the doctrine of merger as follows: “Where an appeal or revision is provided against an order passed by a court, tribunal or any other authority before superior forum ... forum and it is the latter which subsists, remains operative and is capable of enforcement in the eye of the law. Therefore, the Doctrine of Merger simply means that when an order passed by a lower court, tribunal or authority is subjected to the remedy of appeal available under

Samsonite South Asia Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1131/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

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

Sadish Paul, Pondicherry vs. DCIT, Ward-1, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 787/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.787/Chny/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-18 Sadish Paul, Deputy Commissioner Of Income No.19, First Cross, Priyadarshini Nagar, Tax, Gorimedu, Circle-1, Pondicherry-605006 Pondicherry. [Pan: Awxpp6586H) (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Shri N.V.Krishnan, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Revenue By : Ms.Anitha, Addl.Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 03.06.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11 .06.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Amitabh Shukla, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(vi)Section 154

therefore the assessee, if at all, ought to have contested the said order. This hypothesis is taken because the doctrine of merger is not applicable and both order u/s 143(1) and u/s 154 operate on independent plains and are separately appealable. In this regard we have noted ... event to cause grievance to the assesse. In view of the clear statutory position of section 246(1)(a) above, the hypothesis of doctrine of merger do not arise in this case. We find that the first appellate authority has rightly dismissed the assessee’s appeal

Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Pune

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

ITA 305/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.305/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shreenath Mhaskoba Sakhar Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Pune. Karkhana Ltd., Survey No.12/2, 2Nd Floor, Meghdoot Building, Behind Bharat Petroleum Pump, Hadpasar, Pune- 411028. Pan : Aahcs3018G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri B.D. Bhide Revenue By : Shri A. D. Kulkarni Date Of Hearing : 02.04.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Being Aggrieved By An Order Passed U/Sec.250 By The Ld. Cit(A)- Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred For Short As The Ld. Cit(A)) Your

For Appellant: Shri B.D. BhideFor Respondent: Shri A. D. Kulkarni

Section 116Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 438Section 43BSection 80Section 80I

facts & circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CTT(A) erred in not deciding ‘Grounds’ raised before him/her by invoking the ‘doctrine of merger' which fails to decide whether, CPC was justified in imposing additions to the returned income which are untenable as per provisions ... Income Tax Act. Appellant prays to decide whether, the 'doctrine of merger’ is applicable for not deciding Grounds raised before the ld. CIT(A) when there is no difference in the hierarchy of Income Tax authorities passing an order U/Sec.143(1) and U/Sec.143(3) as per provisions of Sec.116

The South Indian Bank, Thrissur vs. DCIT, Circle 1(1) & Tps, Thrissur

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 284/COCH/2024[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 May 2025AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoshri Sandeep Singh Karhailthe South Indian Bank Limited, Head Office, Mission Quarters, Tb Road, Thrissur Kerala - 680001 ............... Appellant Pan : Aabct0022F V/S Dcit, Circle – 1(1) & Tps ……………… Respondent Thrissur, Kerala

For Appellant: Shri Naresh C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 115Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234BSection 234DSection 250

only in that case that the period of limitation can run from the date of the order of rectification. As for the doctrine of merger, which has been urged before us, it is now well-settled that the doctrine of merger is not a doctrine of rigid and universal application

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 212/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

ITAT and it is that order of ITAT, which was impugned before the High Court by the department. As per the principle of doctrine of merger the order of the lower court would get merged into the order of higher court, and therefore, we do not find any force

Sri.Jose Thomas, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The ACIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 211/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 209/COCH/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Mrs.Gracy Babu, Adoor P.O., Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 208/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

Mrs.Reena Jose, Pathanamthitta vs. The DCIT, Cen-Circle, Kottayam

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 207/COCH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin22 May 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Prakash Chand Yadav

For Appellant: Sri.Anil D.Nair, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri.Sundarasan S, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153C

M/S. Blueray Trading Pvt Ltd., Maharastra vs. The Pr. CIT (Central), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 219/AHD/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 May 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri K C Thaker, A.RFor Respondent: Shri V. Nandakumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 263(1)Section 68

merged with the order of Ld. CIT(A). The Counsel for the assessee also placed reliance on several judicial precedents on the “Doctrine of Merger” and submitted that in the instant facts, Ld. PCIT had erred in facts and in law initiating 263 proceedings. 9. In response, Ld. D.R. placed

Babudeen and Party, Jaipur vs. I.T.O. Ward 6(1), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 129/JPR/2025[A.Y. 2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 May 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. G. M. Mehta, C.AFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT

Section 144Section 154Section 220(2)Section 254

inception i.e. date of original order, when the assessment get finally confirmed in those proceedings. When the assessment order is finally affirmed, the doctrine of merger also applies and interest being compensatory in nature, the revenue is entitled to charge the same from the date of original order which merged