| The Tax Publishers2020 TaxPub(DT) 3055 (Mad-HC) INCOME TAX ACT, 1961
Section 147
Where AO was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, yet the notice was issued only in its name and at no point of time, assessee informed AO that Company was struck off from the Register of Companies, that apart, assessee continued to remain as an assessee on the file of Department , therefore, appeal of Revenue was dismissed.
|
Reassessment - Validity of reopening of assessment under section 147 - Notice issued to a company which is non-existent -
Assessee challenged the order issued under section 147 on the ground that M/s. O to whom, notice under section 148 was issued and based upon which order was passed, did not exist at the time of issuance of notice and before passing order. Notice was issued to a company, which was non-existent on the date as it stood amalgamated with assessee. Revenue held that AO was not aware of the amalgamation of the company moreover, the return of income for assessment year 2014-15 had been filed in name of M/s. O by assessee confirming the position that M/s. O was a functioning entity. Further, income tax refund issued by the Department in favour of M/s. O was duly received and encashed by assessee. Held: AO was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, yet the notice was issued only in its name. The challenge to assessment order was on the ground that it was a nullity, as it was passed against a defunct company, as the company was struck off from the Register of Companies. At no point of time, assessee informed AO that Company was struck off from the Register of Companies. Thus, there was no occasion for AO to know about the said fact as assessee failed to bring it to the notice of AO. That apart, assessee continued to remain as an assessee on the file of Department and PAN number was valid and not cancelled. Assessee took no steps to inform the Department about the striking off name of Company from Register of Companies.
Distinguished:Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) : 2019 TaxPub(DT) 4931 (SC) CIT v. M/s. Tarachanthini Services Pvt. Ltd., [T.C.A.Nos.839 & 840 of 2019 dt. 20-7-2020] Alamelu Veerappan v. Income Tax Officer (2018) 304 CTR 512 (Mad) : 2018 TaxPub(DT) 3564 (Mad-HC) BDR Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [W.P.(C) No.2712 of 2016 dt. 26-7-2017] : 2017 TaxPub(DT) 4173 (Del-HC) Spice Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT (2012) 280 ELT 43 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(EX) 723 (Del)
REFERRED :
FAVOUR : Against the assessee
A.Y. : 2014-15
 SUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT
|