ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi V. Pride Redidency (P)Ltd.(in the case of M/s Satkar Fincap Ltd.), New Delhi

ITA 4176/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1538 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SULEKHA VERMA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Scheme of amalgamation; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 264; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITANO.4176/DEL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI VS. M/S. PRIDE RESIDENCY (P) LTD. (IN THE CASE OF M/S. SATKARFINCAP LTD.), F-5/9, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI PAN: AAGCP0358K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SULEKHA VERMA, CIT(DR) RESPONDENT BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING:02.12.2019 DATE OF ORDER :12.12.2019 ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, J.M. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER DATED 27/02/2017 IN APPEAL N O. 92/16-17 (ORIGINAL)/108/16-17 (NEW), PASSED BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-25, NEW DELHI (LD. CIT(A)), REVENUE PREFERRED THIS APPEAL, WHERE UNDER THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER MADE ON THE NAME OF M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED BEING THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BY ORDER DATED 31/12/2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER 2 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WA S ASSESSED AT RS.2,47,52,720/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,40,1 3,860/-ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT AND MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,18 ,405/-. LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME, BUT THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL. 3. WHILE THE MATTERS STOOD THUS, PURSUANT TO THE SE ARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT IN SANSKAR GROUP OF CASES ON 7/8/2010, COVERING ASSESSEE ALSO UNDER SECTION 132/133A OF THE ACT, AS SESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT BY ORDER DATED 26/3/2013 AT AN INCOME OF RS.2,47,53,650/-. THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BY THE A SSESSEE; SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME WAS WITHDRAWN AND DISMISSED BY ORDER DATED 08/01/2014. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED REVI SION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT. THE LD. PCIT VIDE ORD ER DATED 30/3/2015 PASSED AN ORDER UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT,QUASHI NG THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMMITTED AN ERROR INASMU CH AS HAD PASSED AN ORDER IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY, AND TH EREFORE, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER EXAMINATION AND SCRUTINY OF ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND VERIFICATION INCLUDING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE OR DER DATED 23/3/2016 3 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 ON THE NAME OF M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY (P) LTD (IN THE CASE OF M/S SATKARFINCAP LTD.), ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.2,47 ,52,720/-. CHALLENGING THE SAME, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A), CONTENDING THAT IN SPITE OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PCIT TO REASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CO RRECT LEGAL ENTITY, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME. 5. IT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. PCIT, PARTICULARLY, THAT THE ASSESSMENT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY, INASMUCH AS, TH E LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER GIVE NOTICE TO THE CORRECT LEGAL EN TITY, NOR THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF AN EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 264/143(3) OF THE ACT, INCLUDING ISSUE OF N OTICE AND ALSO COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON THE COMPANY WHICH HAD A LREADY BECOME A NON-EXISTENT ON ACCOUNT OF ITS MERGER WITH ANOTHER COMPANY WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND, THEREFORE, SUCH ASSESSMENT BEIN G BAD IN LAW DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6. IT WAS FURTHER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE CASE OF M/S SATKARFINCAP LT D. (THROUGH PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10, WHERE VIDE ORDER DATED 14/7/2016 UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF THE A CT IN APPEAL NO. 60/2013-14, LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS A DEVIATION FROM THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGA RD TO THE AMALGAMATION, THE INCOME EVEN THOUGH HAS BEEN EARNE D BY THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY, BUT IF THE INFORMATION REGARD ING THE 4 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 AMALGAMATION IS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE DONE IN THE HANDS OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY. 7. LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. VS.CIT, 186 ITR 279, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN 2 COMPANIES AMALGAMATE AND MANAGING TO 1, THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY LOSES ITS ENTITY AS THE DECISION S TO HAVE ITS BUSINESS, AND THEIR RESPECTIVE RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES ARE DET ERMINED UNDER THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, BUT THE CORPORATE ENTITY OF THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY CEASES TO EXIST WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE T HE AMALGAMATION IS MADE EFFECTIVE. LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, HELD THAT, T HOUGH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED IN SECTION 264 OF TH E ACT TO REASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL E NTITY AND AS A MATTER OF FACT WAS AWARE OF SUCH DIRECTIONS, FAILED TO FOL LOW THE SAME WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME I N THE HANDS OF A NON-EXISTING COMPANY, WHICH HAD CEASED TO EXIST AFT ER SUM OF COMMISSION, AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RE NDERED VOID AND WAS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. HE ACCORDINGLY QUASHED TH E SAME. 8. CHALLENGING SUCH AN ORDER, REVENUE IS IN THIS AP PEAL BEFORE US STATING THAT THE INCOME OF THE SEARCHED COMPANY (AM ALGAMATING COMPANY) WAS CORRECTLY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY, NAMELY, M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITE D AND, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS IN ERROR IN QUASHING THE SAME. IT IS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SEARCHED COMPANY AND SUCH AN ERROR IS CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292-B OF THE ACT. SHE PLACED RELIANCE ON 5 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF SKYLIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP VS. ACIT (2018) 405 ITR 29 6 (DELHI). 9. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE FORM-36 BY REGISTERED MAIL WITH POSTAGE PRE- PAID.IF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE IN SUCH ADDRESS, SUCH NOTICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IF FOR ANY REASON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AVAILABLE THERE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ARR ANGEMENTS FOR SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICE BY FURNISHING THE ADDRESS WHERE THE ASS ESSEE WOULD BE AVAILABLE, OR TO DELIVER IT TO SOME AUTHORISED PERS ON, OR BY MAKING REQUEST TO THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT TO DETAIN THE MAIL TILL THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM T O HAVE ADOPTED ANY OF THESE METHODS, WHERE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION T HAT NO TIME COULD BE GRANTED. BASING ON THE RECORD WE PROCEED TO HEAR THE LD. DR AND DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERITS. 10. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR. FACTS RELEVANT FOR PROPER APPRE CIATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE WA S REALLY WAS SATKARFINCAP LTD, A COMPANY IN THE GROUP OF COMPA NIES LED BY THE FLAGSHIP CONCERN M/S SANSKAR HOME PRIVATE LIMITED. THE GROUP IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUC TION OF BUILDINGS, HOMES, PLOTS ETC. TRADING IN PROPERTIES AND UNDERTA KING CONSTRUCTION/COLLABORATION PROJECTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE AMALGAMATED WITH PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED VIDE ORDER DATED 17/08/2012 OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT PASSED U NDER SECTION 391(2) AND 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, W.E.F., 1/4/201 1, AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SATKARFINCAP LTD. SAYS IT TO EXIST, THEREAFTER. SUCH A FACT WAS 6 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 INFORMED TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, CC-3, BY THE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 02/11/2012 AND 23/02/2016. 10. EARLIER SATKAR WAS ASSESSED BY ORDER DATED 31/1 2/2010 AT AN INCOME OF RS.44,05,658/-AGAINST WHICH THEY HAVE FIL ED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO BY ORDER DATED 25/02/2014 ALLOWED T HE APPEAL IN PART, AND THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 14/08/2015 QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON TECHNICAL GROUND, AGAINST WHICH THE REVENU E PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HONBLE HIGH COURT SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE ITAT. SUBSEQUENTLY, CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH ON 07/08/2010 ON THE SANSKAR GROUP, SATKAR ONCE AGAIN WAS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 26/ 3/2013 BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, CC-3, NEW DELHI AT AN IN COME OF RS.44,06,260/-, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATI NG EVIDENCE. 11. AT THIS STAGE, SATKAR, THROUGH THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). IN BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECTIFICATION OBLIGATI ON UNDER SECTION 154 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BY ORDER DATED 12/9/2013 REDUCING THE DEMAND TO RS.204/-, UP ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHDREW THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). ASSESSEE HOWEVER, FILED A WRITTEN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT AND THE LD. PCIT BY ORDER DATED 30/3/2015 QUASHED THE ASSES SMENT ORDER DATED 26/3/2013 ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY, NAMELY, SATKAR WHICH HAD CEASED TO EXIST AFTER ITS AMALGAMATION WITH THE PRI DE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED AND THEREFORE, LD. PCIT DIRECTED THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO REASSESS 7 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEG AL ENTITY AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 12. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142 (1) OF THE ACT ON 30/1/2016 IN THE NAME OF THE NON-EXISTEN T COMPANY SATKAR, BUT DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A AND 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY, NAME LY, PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED. ASSESSEE PROTESTED THE SAME WHILE PARTICIPATING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED THE ORDER DATED 23/3/2016 ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS.44,06,26 0/- ON THE NAME OF M/S. PRIDE RESIDENCY (P) LTD (IN THE CASE OF M/S SA TKARFINCAP LTD). 12. AGAINST THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEN THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONS IDERING THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM REACHED A FACTUAL CONCLUSION THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS AWARE OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LD. PCIT IN T HE ORDER UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSMENT MA DE IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY WHICH FACT HE MEN TIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF BUT ISSUED NOTICE TO THE CO MPANY WITH PAN AAJCS 6820 ITA WHICH WAS UPON OF M/S SATKARFINCAP L TD, THE NON- EXISTENT COMPANY. CIT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACI T, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER THE EXISTING COR RECT LEGAL ENTITY, NAMELY, M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED OVER WH ICH THE DEDUCTION WAS VESTED IN CIRCLE 20 (1), NEW DELHI. LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, OBSERVED THAT NEITHER THE ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE EXIST ING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY, NAMELY, M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED, NOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER INVOLVED, NAMELY, ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELH I, COULD HAVE TAKEN ANY LEGAL ACTION AGAINST THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY, AS THE 8 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 JURISDICTION OVER IT WAS WITH SOME OTHER LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS VITIATED AND ON THIS GROUND HE QUASHED THE SAME. 13. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMS TANCES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APP EAL NO. 60/2013-14 BY ORDER DATED 14/7/2016, LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON SS PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED (IN TH E CASE OF M/S SATKARFINCAP LTD.) WAS RENDERED VOID AND QUASHED TH E SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER LD. CIT(A) READ THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND WHI LE FOLLOWING THE SAME QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 14. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE RECORD, LD. PCIT IN T HE ORDER DATED 30/3/2015 PASSED UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT, OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT HAS BEEN QUASHED ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS BECAUSE THE L EARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF NON- EXISTING COMPANY AS THE COMPANY HAD CEASED TO EXIST AFTER ITS AMALGAMATION; THAT THERE IS ALSO NO DENYING OF THE FACT THAT CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UPON THE COMPANY, THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPANY AFTER CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND AFTER MAKING VERIFICATI ON AND SCRUTINY AND AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE; THAT THE ONLY ERROR WHICH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMMITTED WAS THAT TH E ORDER WAS PASSED IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTING COMPANY; THAT THIS BE ING A TECHNICAL ERROR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO REASSESS THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE EXISTING CORRECT LEGAL ENTITY AFTER GIVING PROP ER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING 9 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER THE EXAMINATION, SC RUTINY OF ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AND VERIFICATION, INCLUDING THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE; AND THAT TO SUCH AN EXTENT THE DIRECT IONS MAY BE TREATED AS A DIRECTIONS UNDER SECTION 150 OF THE ACT. 15. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FACTUAL ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THA T BEING AWARE OF THE SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PCIT, AND HAVI NG REPRODUCED SUCH DIRECTIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF, AND IN S PITE OF SUCH CLEAR AND SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REPEATED THE EARLIER ACTION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND THE COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT UPON AMALGAMATING COMPANY, WHICH IS EASY TO EXIST. FURTH ER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER DATED 26/7/2016 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN ASSESSEES CASE IN THE NAME OF M/S PRIDE RESIDENCY PRIVATE LIMITED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. SO THESE FACTS DO NOT ADMIT OF ANY DOUBT THAT IN SPITE OF THE CLEAR DIREC TIONS GIVEN BY THE LD. PCIT UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAME AND REPEATED THE EARLIER ACTIO N OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT ON THE AMALGAMA TING COMPANY WHICH IS EASY TO EXIST INSTEAD OF DOING SO ON THE A MALGAMATED COMPANY AS HE DID FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 16. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT WITH THE LD. CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S ARASWATIINDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN TWO COMPANIES AMALGAMATED MERGED INTO ONE, THE TRANSFER COMPANY L OSES ITS ENTITY AS IT SERIOUS TO HAVE ITS BUSINESS, AND THEIR RESPECTI VE RIGHTS ARE LIABLE TO BE DETERMINED UNDER THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, BUT TH E CORPORATE 10 ITA NO.4176/DEL/2017 ENTITY OF THE TRANSFER COMPANY CEASES TO EXIST WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE OF THE AMALGAMATION IS MADE EFFECTIVE. IN THIS MATT ER THE AMALGAMATION WAS EFFECTIVE FROM 1/4/2011 UNDER THE ORDER DATED 1 7/08/2012 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT UNDER SECTION 391 ( 2) AND 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF SKYLIGHT HOSPITALITY LLP (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICAT ION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE SINCE IN SUCH CASE THE NOTICE ISSUED ON THE AM ALGAMATING COMPANY WAS CHALLENGED. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY BROUGHT IT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THERE WAS A MERGER OF THE COMPANIES, AND THERE WAS A DIRECTION OF THE LD. PCIT TO ISSUE NOTICE AND HEAR THEY CORRECT THE EXISTING LEGAL ENT ITY. HOWEVER, THERE IS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID DIRECTION INASMUCH AS HE ISSUED NOTICES TO THE NON-EXISTENT COMPANY AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON IT. 17. IN THIS FACTUAL SITUATION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND HIS FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 DO NOT SUFFER ANY ILLEGALITY OR IRREGU LARITY. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS IN THE GROUNDS AND ACCORDING LY DISMISSED THE SAME. 18. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (K. NARASIMHA CHARY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 12/12/2019 RK