Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6969 (ITAT-PUNE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
6 year(s) 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-09-2021
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2010-2011
Appeal Filed On
13-04-2015
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, J UDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NO . 443 /PUN/20 1 5 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 GARRETT MOTION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AS A LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ), PLOT NO. 4A, RAISONI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VILLAGE MANN, MULSHI, NEAR HINJEWADI PHASE II, PUNE 411057 PAN : AABCH5035J ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1 1, PUNE / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.477/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 GARRETT MOTION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AS A LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED), PLOT NO. 4A, RAISONI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VILLAGE MANN, MULSHI, NEAR HINJEWADI PHASE II, PUNE 411057 PAN : AABCH5035J ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11, PUNE / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 . / ITA NO.557/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11, PUNE ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. GARRETT MOTION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AS A LEGAL SUCCESSOR OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED), PLOT NO. 4A, RAISONI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VILLAGE MANN, MULSHI, NEAR HINJEWADI PHASE II, PUNE 411057 PAN : AABCH5035J / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.44/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 GARRETT MOTION TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED, (EARLIER KNOWN AS HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AS A LEGAL SUCC ESSOR OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED), PLOT NO. 4A, RAISONI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, VILLAGE MANN, MULSHI, NEAR HINJEWADI PHASE II, PUNE 411057 PAN : AABCH5035J ...... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 11, PUNE / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJIT KUMAR JAIN & SHRI SIDDHESH CHAUGULE REVENUE BY : SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA / DATE OF HEARING : 2 4 - 06 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 - 0 9 - 2021 3 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015 BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27 - 02 - 2015 , ITA NO. 477/PUN/2016 BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 557/PUN/2016 BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29 - 01 - 2016 PASSED BY THE DCIT, CIRCLE - 11, PUNE /AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT AND ITA NO. 44/PUN/2017 AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18 - 11 - 2016 PASSED BY THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 11, PUNE/AO U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 1 0 - 11 , 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, RESPECTIVELY . 2. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR BASING ON THE SAME IDENTICAL FACTS. THEREFORE, WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE PROCEED TO HEAR ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND TO PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST, WE SHALL TAKE UP APPEAL IN ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010 - 11 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON 05 - 09 - 2019 WHICH ARE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FILED FURTHER TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN UP IN THE SUBJECT APPEAL. FURTHE R, HE SUBMITS THAT THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED WAS NEITHER DELIBERATE NOR CONTUMACIOUS BUT ARE ARISING OUT OF THE LEGAL POSITION WHICH HAS COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENT TO FILING OF THE CAPTIONED APPEAL. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADM ISSION AND ADJUDICATION OF THE SAID ADDITIONAL 4 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 GROUNDS WOULD BE ESSENTIAL FOR DUE DISPENSATION OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE , A PURE QUESTION OF LAW AND PRAYED TO ADMIT THE SAME. 5 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES . WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LEGAL GROUND ARISING OUT OF THE FACTS ALREADY ON RECORD. SINCE, NO INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED INTO THE FRESH FACTS, THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO ADMIT THE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW : A. GROUND WITH RESPECT TO FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ISSUED TO A NON - EXISTING ENTITY ADDITIONAL GROUND : 21 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NA ME CHANGE INTIMATION WAS FILED WITH THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6 . THE LD. AR SUBMITS THAT THE AO PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 27 - 02 - 2015 OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY AND THE SA ID ASSESSMENT IS INVALID. THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD VIDE LEGAL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING ANNEXURE 1, 2, 3 AND 4 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS AND ARGUED THAT THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTENT ENTITY IS BAD UNDER LAW. THE LD. D R SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN ALL THE PROCEEDINGS RIGHT FROM TPO, DRP AND FINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , H AVING PARTICIPATED , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RAISE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND SEEKING TO QUASH THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTENDING IT I S NOT MAINTAINABLE AS IT WAS PASSED ON NON - EXISTENT ENTITY. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON PROVISIONS U/S. 292B OF THE ACT. 5 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 7 . HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN THE NAME OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED HAVING PAN AABCH5865J ON 30 - 09 - 2010 WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK - 1 CONTAINING PAGE NOS. 1 TO 491. WE NOTE THAT THE SAID ASSESSEE HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WITH HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VIDE ORDER DATED 05 - 07 - 2013 OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY APPROVED THE APPOINTED DATED AS 01 - 04 - 2012. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR AS AND FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE (APPOINTED DATE) THE PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE CONTINUED AND ENFORCED BY OR AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE COMPANY IN THE SAME MANNER AND TO THE SAME EXTENT AS WOULD OR MIGHT HAVE BEEN CONTINUED AND ENFORCED BY OR AGAINST THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY , BUT, THE TPO PASSED ORDER U/S. 92CA OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ON 28 - 01 - 2014 I.E. TRANSFER OR COMPANY . THE ASSESSEE INTIMATED TO THE AO ABOUT THE ARRA NGEMENT OF AMALGAMATION AND PASSING OF ORDER TO THAT EFFECT BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 03 - 09 - 2013 WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME , THE OFFICE OF ACIT, CIRCLE - 1(2), PUNE ACKNOWLEDGED THE SAID LETTER , WHEREIN, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THE AMALGAMATION OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH EFFECT FROM APPOINTED DATE I.E. 01 - 04 - 2012 AND IT IS ALSO CLEARLY INFORMED THAT THE HONEYWEL L TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WOULD STAND DISSOLVED FROM 01 - 04 - 2012. IN SPITE OF RECEIPT OF SAID LETTER , THE TPO PASSED AN ORDER U/S. 92CA OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF TRANSFEROR COMPANY OR AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ON 28 - 01 - 2014 WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE TPO HAVING AWARE OF MERGER OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED PASSED TRANSFER PRICING ADJUSTMENT 6 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 ORDER. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THE DRAF T ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(1) OF THE ACT ALSO PASSED IN THE NAME OF TRANSFEROR COMPANY OR AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ON 27 - 03 - 2014 WHICH IS AT PAGE NOS. 191 AND 192 OF THE APPEAL MEMO. FURTHER, WE NOT E THAT THE DRP GAVE DIRECTIONS U/S. 144C(5) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF TRANSFER EE COMPANY OR AMALGAMAT ED COMPANY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 24 - 12 - 2014. IN CONSEQUENCE OF WHICH THE AO PASSED FINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER ON 27 - 02 - 2015 IN THE NAME OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED AND ALSO DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 OF THE ACT AT ANNEXURE 4 WHICH IS NON - EXISTENT AS ON THE SAID DATE, IN OUR OPINION , IS BAD UNDER LAW. 8 . THE LD. AR PLACED ON RECORD LEGAL PAPE R BOOK CONTAINING 60 PAGES , WHEREIN, WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED BY FOLLOWING ITS OWN ORDER IN BATCH OF CIVIL APPEALS, THE LEAD APPEAL BEING SPICE INFO TAINMENT REPORTED IN 247 CTR 500 (DEL.) , WHICH HELD THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN AMALGAMATED AND DISSOLVED IS NULL AND VOID. FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THE PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY IS A SUBSTANTIVE ILLEGALITY AND NOT A PR OCEDURAL VIOLATION OF THE NATURE ADVERTED TO IN SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DCIT/AO WAS INFORMED OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY HAVING CEASED TO EXIST IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE APPROVED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION BY THE HO NBE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN ITS NAME IS AGAINST THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY (HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED) CEASE D TO EXIST UPON THE APPROVED SCHEME BY THE HONBLE HI GH COURT OF BOMBAY. REGARDING THE PARTICIPATION IN THE 7 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 PROCEEDINGS AS CONTENDED BY THE LD. DR, IN OUR OPINION, PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT OPERATE AS AN ESTOPPELS AGAINST LAW , THUS, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT AS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH WOULD BE CURED BY INVO KING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, T HUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE FRAMING OF FINA L ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON - EXISTENT COMPANY GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY, BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFE CT. THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 21 CHALLENGING THE VALI DITY OF FINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTENT ENTITY AND THEREFORE, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE DCIT/AO DATED 27 - 02 - 2015 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) OF THE ACT IS QUASHED. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 21 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 9 . IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ADDITIONAL GROUND NO . 21, ALL THE GROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BECOMES ACADEMIC, HENCE, REQUIRING NO ADJUDICATION. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015 IS ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 477/PUN/2016 BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 557/PUN/2016 BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. 11 . WE FIND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO. 203 ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW : A. GROUND WITH RESPECT TO FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ISSUED TO A NON - EXISTING ENTITY 8 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 ADDITIONAL GROUND : 9 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NAME CHANGE INTIMATION WAS FILED WITH THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 1 2 . HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE NOS. 1 TO 203. THE RE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACTUAL SYNOPSIS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 9 ON 23 - 06 - 2021 WHICH IS ON RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR, SHRI NAVEEN GUPTA IS THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT IS ISSUED IN THE CORRECT NAME AND ALSO THE DIRECTIONS OF DRP ISSUED IN THE NAME OF CORRECT NAME. HE ARGUED THAT THE CASE LAW RELIED BY THE LD. AR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. HE REFERRED TO PARA NO. 8 OF THE LEGAL PAPER BOOK IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND ARGUED THAT IN THE SAID CASE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MERGING COMPANY AND IN THIS CASE THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON THE CORRECT NAME . 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 THE AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 03 - 07 - 2013 U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED ON WHICH DATE THERE WAS NO ORDER PASSED BY THE HON BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY APPROVING THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED. THE LD. DR RAISED A POINT SINCE THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT ISSUED IN THE CORRECT NA ME AS NO ORDER EFFECTING AMALGAMATION IS ENFORCED. HE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN A.Y. 2010 - 11 AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED IS NOT APPLICABLE AS IN THE SAI D CASE 9 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF MERGING COMPANY BEING AWARE OF THE AMALGAMATION THEREON. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE AO ABOUT THE APPROVAL OF AMALGAMATION SCHEME BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY VIDE ITS INTIMATION LETTER DATED 03 - 09 - 2013 BUT HOWEVER THE CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS LIKE TP ORDER U/S. 92CA, DRAFT ORDER U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C OF THE ACT WERE PASSED ON NON - EXISTING ENTITY VIDE ORDER DATED 28 - 01 - 2015 AND 31 - 03 - 2015, RESPECTIVELY WHICH ARE AT PAGE NOS. 39 AND 114 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR HAVING IN THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE MERGER OF HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED , THE TPO PASSED CONDUCTED CONSEQUENTIAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE IN THE CORRECT NAME DOES NOT ATTAIN ANY SIGNIFICANCE IN VIEW OF CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ON NON - EXISTING ENTITY. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL RENDERED ITS DIRECTIONS U/S. 144C(5) OF THE ACT ON 18 - 11 - 2015 WHICH IS AT PA GE NO. 119 OF THE PAPER BOOK ON CORRECT NAME I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH NEW PAN AND AGAIN THE AO PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONING HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED MERGER WITH HONEYWELL TURBO TECHNOLOGIES ( INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED WITH OLD NAME WHICH IS AT PAGE NO. 182 OF THE PAPER BOOK TOGETHER WITH DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 OF THE ACT ON NON - EXISTING ENTITY AT PAGE NO. 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. WE NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED THE FACTS THER EIN BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THE AO PASSED FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONING THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY MERGE D WITH TRANSFEREE OR AMALGAMATED ENTITY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF MARUTI SUZUKI IND IA LIMITED ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF LD. DR IN THIS REGARD ARE REJECTED. WE HOLD THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER TOGETHER WITH DEMAND NOTICE U/S. 156 OF THE ACT ISSUED UNDER NON - EXISTING ENTITY IS BAD 10 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 UNDE R LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29 - 01 - 2016 FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 IS QUASHED. THUS, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN ALLOWING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 9 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE BECOMES ACADEMIC AND IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION IN QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DECLARING THE SAME AS BAD UNDER LAW, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 557/PUN/2016 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, IT IS DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 477/PUN/2016 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 557/PUN/2016 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO . 44/PUN/2017 FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 BY THE ASSESSEE 15. WE FIND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED HERE - IN - BELOW : A. GROUND WITH RESPECT TO FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ISSUED TO A NON - EXISTING ENTITY ADDITIONAL GROUND : 8 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ALONG WITH THE DEMAND NOTICE IN THE NAME OF NON - EXISTING ENTITY I.E. HONEYWELL TURBO (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NAME CHANGE INTIMATION WAS FILED WITH THE TAX AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 16. WE NOTE THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE RELATING TO ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 8 ARE SIMILAR ON IDENTICAL FACTS RELEVANT TO FACTS IN ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015. SINCE, THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 44/PUN/2017 ARE SIMILAR TO ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 443/PUN/2015 WOULD MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO ITA NO. 44/PUN/2017, AS WELL. THUS, ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 8 11 ITA NOS.443/PUN/2015, 477 & 557/PUN/2016 & 44/PUN/2017 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, ACCORDINGLY. 17. TO SUM UP, THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 443/PUN/2015, 4 77 /PUN/2016 AND 44/PUN/2017 ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IN ITA NO. 557/PUN/2016 IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 202 1 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.S. SYAL ) ( S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 07 TH SEPTEMBER, 202 1 . RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - 13, PUNE 4. THE PR. CIT - 5, PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, C BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE
