Zenta Knowledge Services (P) Limited, Mumbai V. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 54/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4240 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAYANTHI KRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SIVAM

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.882/MDS/2015 & CO NO.54/MDS/2015 $ '$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI 600 034. V. M/S.ZENTA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES (P) LIMITED, PLANT -3, GODREJ & BOYCE COMPLEX, LBS MARG, VIKROLI (W), MUMBAI 400 079. PAN : AABCG3742P ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) ./ITA NO.1129/MDS/2015 $ '$ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ACCENTURE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, PLANT -3, GODREJ & BOYCE COMPLEX, LBS MARG, VIKROLI (W), MUMBAI 400 079. PAN : AABCG3742P V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE -3(2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SIVAM, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, CIT -DR , -.% /DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016 /0' -.% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2016 2 I.T.A. NOS.882 & 1129/MDS/2015 C.O.NO.54/MDS/2015 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APP EALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTION OF THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL ORDER DATED 24.12.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING SHRI S. SIVAM, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE COMPANY NAMELY M/S.ZENTA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS ME RGED WITH M/S.ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2012. THI S FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS ALSO B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE TPO. INSPITE OF THAT, BOTH TPO AND AO HAS PASSED TH E ORDER AGAINST THE M/S.ZENTA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH IS NONEXISTENT ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS TH E DRP. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP HAS ALSO PASSED AN ORDER AGAINST THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DRP AND THE AO CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. IN OTHER WORDS, ACC ORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AGAINST A NONEXISTENT COMPANY CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT M/ S.ZENTA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNA L INITIALLY AGAINST THE ORDER OF 3 I.T.A. NOS.882 & 1129/MDS/2015 C.O.NO.54/MDS/2015 THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE F ILED AN APPLICATION TO TAKE M/S.ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. AS APPELLANT BEFOR E THIS TRIBUNAL. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHEN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AGAINST THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW, HOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE NAME OF THE NONEXISTENT COMPAN Y IS VALID. THE LEARNED COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT EVEN THOUGH AT INITIAL STAGE , THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY WAS SHOWN AS APPELLANT, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATI ON TO TAKE THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY NAMELY M/S.ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. AS APPELLANT BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AND THE REGISTRY HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION TO RECTIFY THE CAUSE TITLE. 3. WE HEARD SMT. JAYANTHI KRISHNAN, THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT M/S.ZENTA KNOWLEDGE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE ON TH E DATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO, TPO AND DRP, IT IS NOT KNOWN HOW THE ASS ESSEE COULD FILE AN APPEAL IN THE NAME OF THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY. THIS TRIBUN AL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AGAINST THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY ON THE DATE OF THE ORDER CANNOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LA W. SIMILARLY AN APPEAL FILED BY THE NONEXISTENT COMPANY ALSO CANNOT BE TREATED A S A VALID APPEAL. MOREOVER, THE APPLICATION SAID TO BE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE TO SUBSTITUTE THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY NAMELY M/S.ACCENTURE SERVICES PVT. LTD. CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AT THIS STAGE. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN AN APPEAL IS FILED IN THE NAME OF A NONEXISTENT COMPANY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SUBST ITUTION DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS 4 I.T.A. NOS.882 & 1129/MDS/2015 C.O.NO.54/MDS/2015 INITIATED BY A NONEXISTENT COMPANY BEFORE THIS TRIB UNAL CANNOT SURVIVE AT ALL. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SUBSTITUTION OF ANY EXISTENT COMPANY IN THE PLACE OF A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED AND ALSO CROSS OBJE CTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! . '#'$ ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED, THE 14 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SP. - *.23 43'. /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. , 5. ( )/CIT(A) 4. , 5. /CIT, 5. 36 *. /DR 6. $ 7 /GF.