ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED with VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI V. ACIT, CC- 29, NEW DELHI

ITA 4694/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6954 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M BARNWAL SENIOR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Procedural lapse; Scheme of amalgamation; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 143(2); 13; 147; 68; 148; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE) ITA NO.4694/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS VS. ACIT, CC 29 PRIVATE LIMITED, NEW DELHI. (NOW MERGED WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD.), PLOT NO.M-7, M-52/53, GROUND FLOOR, GALI NO.10, ANAND PARBAT INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI 110 005. (PAN : AAHCA1969Q) ITA NO.4695/DEL./2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CC 29 (NOW MERGED WITH TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD.), NEW DELHI. PLOT NO.M-7, M-52/53, GROUND FLOOR, GALI NO.10, ANAND PARBAT INDL. AREA, NEW DELHI 110 005. (PAN : AAGCA6206M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN, CA, SHRI ASHISH GOEL, CA SHRI UMANG LUTHRA, CA REVENUE BY : SHRI M. BARNWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2020 DATE OF ORDER : 04.09.2020 O R D E R ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 2 PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : SINCE COMMON QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW HAVE BEEN R AISED IN BOTH THE AFORESAID APPEALS, THE SAME ARE BEING D ISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 2. APPELLANTS, M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJEC TS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD.) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS SOUGHT TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BOTH DATED 03.04.2017 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-30, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 ON THE IDENTICAL GROUNDS EXCEPT FOR FIGURE OF ADDITIONS MA DE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) INTER AL IA THAT :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [C IT (A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONF IRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3), DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY. (II) THAT ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CA SE, THE REASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE NAME OF M/S ARTSY INFRAS TRUCTURE & PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED WHICH HAD SINCE AMALGAMATED WITH M/ S VATSAL INFRA PROJECT PRIVATE LIMITED AND HAD CEASED TO EXIST IN THE EYE OF LAW, WAS NON EST. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 148, IGNORING THE FAC T THAT THE SAME WAS BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THE CONDITIONS AND PROCEDU RES PRESCRIBED UNDER THE STATUE HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED AND COMPLI ED WITH. 4. (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED A O ARE BAD IN THE ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 3 EYE OF LAW AS THE REASONS RECORDED FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ARE VAGUE. (II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE LEARNED AO ARE BAD IN THE EYE OF LAW AS THERE IS NO LIVE NEXUS BETWEEN THE REASONS RECORDED AND THE BELIEF FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING ARE BAD IN LAW, AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN RECORDED WITHOUT INDEPENDENT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING ADDITIONS (AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- AND RS.40,00,000 IN CASE OF M/S. ART SY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT . LTD. RESPECTIVELY) MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF SHARE CAPITA L UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 7. THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED REJECT ING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECOR D BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE S HAREHOLDERS AS WELL AS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 8. (I) THAT THE ABOVESAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIR MED DESPITE HAVING BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO REBUT THE SAME IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (II) THAT THE ABOVESAID ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRME D DESPITE HAVING BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED WITHOU T GIVING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME IN VIOLATI ON OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012, DESPITE THE SA ME BEING NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED (NOW MERGED WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJEC TS PVT. LTD.) AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH TTJ I MPEX PVT. LTD.) WAS INCORPORATED ON 07.08.2008 AND 24.09.2007 RESPECTIVELY. THEY HAVE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 AND THE ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 4 ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. ON R ECEIPT OF INFORMATION FROM INVESTIGATION WING, ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED IN BOTH THE CASES AFTER RECORDING REASONS THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.50, 00,000/- AND RS.40,00,000/- IN CASE OF M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. RESPEC TIVELY U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISO THERETO ON THE GROUND TH AT THE AMOUNT ALLEGEDLY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM BY WAY OF RECEIVING SHARE APPLICATION AND SHARE PREMIUM MONEY, REMAINED UNEXP LAINED MONEY HAVING BEEN PUMPED INTO ITS BUSINESS IN THE G ARB OF FRESH SHARE CAPITAL AND SHARE PREMIUM. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT ( A) BY WAY OF FILING THE APPEALS WHO HAS DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEA LS BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE AS SESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN T HE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 5 5. AT THE VERY OUTSET, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CONT ENDED THAT IN BOTH THE APPEALS, AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) HAVE ER RED IN FRAMING/ CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF NON- EXISTENT ENTITY BEING M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. MERGED WITH TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. WHI CH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND AS SUCH, REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON ON THE DECIS IONS RENDERED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SPICE ENFOTAINMENT VS. CIT IN ITA 475 & 476 OF 2011 DATED 03.08.2011, AFFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN C IVIL APPEAL NO.285-286 OF 2014 ORDER DATED 02.11.2017, P CIT VS. NOKIA SOLUTIONS & NETWORK INDIA PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS NOKIA SIEMENS NETWORK PVT. LTD. IN ITA 135/2018 ORD ER DATED 06.02.20189, PCTI VS. BMA CAPFIN LTD. ITA 1181 OF 2 017 & CM NO.46887 OF 2017 ORDER DATED 27.12.2017, BDR BUI LDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT WP (C) 2712/2016 ORDE R DATED 26.07.2017 & PCIT VS. KAIZEN PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (PR ESENTLY KNOWN AS AAS RESEARCH & SOLUTIONS (P) LTD. UPON AMALGAMATION WITH VENTURA RESEARCH & SOLUTIONS (P) LTD.) ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 6 ORDER DATED 25.07.2017, JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX C OURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. IN C.A . NO.5409 OF 2019 DATED 25.07.2019, M/S. DALMIA POWER LTD. VS. A CIT IN CA NO.9496-099 OF 2019 AND DECISIONS OF COORDINATE BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN NIRVANA LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. (NOW MERGED WITH TTJ IMPEX LTD.) IN ITA NO.4793/DEL/2017 ORDER DATED 09. 03.2018, RUDRAKSHA AGENCIES COMPANY LTD. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 21 (2), NEW DELHI 2018 (5) TMI 740 ITAT DELHI & DCIT, CIR CLE 18 (1), NEW DELHI VS. NDC TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA PVT . LTD. 2018 (10) TMI 1119 ITAT DELHI. 7. UNDISPUTEDLY, M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJ ECTS PRIVATE LIMITED MERGED WAS WITH VATSAL INFRAPROJECTS PVT. L TD. VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2014 AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. WAS M ERGED WITH TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER DATED 26.05.2014 PAS SED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN COMPANY PETITION NO.645 OF 2013 CONNECTED WITH COMPANY APPLICATION NO.(M) 157 OF 20 13 W.E.F. 01.04.2013. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSM ENT IN CASE OF M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED A ND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LTD WAS FRAMED BY THE AO ON 28.12.2016 & 29.12.2016 RESPECTIVELY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT EVEN AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, ASSE SSMENT COMPANY WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 7 8. BY NOW, THE ISSUE AS TO FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT O N A NON- EXISTENT COMPANY HAVING BEEN MERGED WITH SOME OTHER ENTITY BEING NULLITY IS SETTLED. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SPICE ENFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE IDENTICAL FACTS BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDINGS :- '12. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURA L IRREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD BE CURED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. - PROVISIONS OF SECTION 29 28 OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. - THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE RO OT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISD ICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PE RSON. . 16. WHEN WE APPLY THE RATIO OF AFORESAID CASES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING ENTITY /PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON. 9. AFORESAID DECISION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 02.11.2017 PASSED IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.285-286OPF -2014 . 10. SIMILARLY, HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF PR.CIT VS. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) ALSO QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON AMALGAMATING COMPANY BY RETURNING FOLLOWING FINDING S :- 33 IN THE PRESENT CASE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INFORMED OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY HA VING CEASED TO EXIST AS A RESULT OF THE APPROVED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED ONLY IN ITS ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 8 NAME. THE BASIS ON WHICH JURISDICTION WAS INVOKED W AS FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT THE AMALGAMATING ENTITY CEASES TO EXIST UPON THE APPROV ED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION. PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES CANNOT OPERATE AS AN ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW. THIS POSITION NOW HOLDS THE FIELD IN VIEW OF THE JU DGMENT OF A CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF TWO LEARNED JUDGES WHICH DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT ON 2 NOVEMBER 2017. THE DECISION IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT WHILE DISMISSING THE SPECIAL LEAVE P ETITION FOR AY 2011-2012. IN DOING SO, THIS COURT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT. 34. WE FIND NO REASON TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. TH ERE IS A VALUE WHICH THE COURT MUST ABIDE BY IN PROMOTING TH E INTEREST OF CERTAINTY IN TAX LITIGATION. THE VIEW WHICH HAS BEE N TAKEN BY THIS COURT IN RELATION TO THE RESPONDENT FOR AY 2011-12 MUST, IN OUR VIEW BE ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF THE PRESENT APPEAL WH ICH RELATES TO AY 2012-13. NOT DOING SO WILL ONLY RESULT IN UNCERT AINTY AND DISPLACEMENT OF SETTLED EXPECTATIONS. THERE IS A SI GNIFICANT VALUE WHICH MUST ATTACH TO OBSERVING THE REQUIREMENT OF C ONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY. INDIVIDUAL AFFAIRS ARE CONDUCTED AND BUSINESS DECISIONS ARE MADE IN THE EXPECTATION OF CONSISTENC Y, UNIFORMITY AND CERTAINTY. TO DETRACT FROM THOSE PRINCIPLES IS NEITHER EXPEDIENT NOR DESIRABLE.' 11. COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DAT ED 09.03.2018 IN CASE OF NIRVANA LIFESTYLE PVT. LTD. ( SUPRA) ALSO QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ON AMALGAMATING COMPANY MERG ED WITH TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. 12. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT NOTICE O F MERGER ALLEGED TO BE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITO IN CASE OF M/S. ARTSY INFRASTRUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED H AS NEVER BEEN SERVED UPON THE JURISDICTIONAL ITO AS THE JURISDICT ION WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ITO, WARD NO.3(2), NEW DELHI. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT EVEN LETTERS OF INTIMATION BY THE AS SESSEE IN BOTH THE ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 9 CASES BEAR NO SIGNATURE AND NO DIARY NUMBER OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHE N FACTUM OF MERGER BY VIRTUE OF THE ORDERS DATED 25.05.2014 AND 26.05.2014 PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS IN THE P UBLIC DOMAIN AND THE NOTICE OF INTIMATION OF MERGER WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF M/S. TTJ IMPEX PVT. LTD. TO THE JURISDICTIO NAL ITO, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN BOTH THE CASES MUCH AFTER MERGER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH AMALGAMATED COMPANY. THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT, MUMBAI VS. I-VEN INTERACT IVE LTD. (2019) 418 ITR 662 (SC) . 13. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DECISION REL IED UPON BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHICH IS ON THE SERVICE O F NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WHEREAS, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ISSUE IS SIMPLY AS TO WHETHER ASSESSMENT FRAMED OF AMALGAMATING CO MPANY IS SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW . 14. MOREOVER, THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION ITSELF TAK ES CARE OF ALL THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ERSTWHILE COMPANY. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CEASED TO BE IN EXISTENCE AND ITS NAME GOT STRUCK OF FROM THE ROLLS OF REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, ASSESSMENTS FR AMED AGAINST IT ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 10 BY THE AO VIDE ORDERS DATED 28.12.2016 & 29.12.2016 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW, BEING A NULLITY. 15. SO, IN VIEW OF WHAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED ABOVE AN D BY RELYING UPON THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT AND HONBLE APEX COURT DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING P ARAS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN BOTH THE AMALGAMAT ING COMPANY, ASSESSEES IN THIS CASE, HAVE CEASED TO EXIST BY VIR TUE OF THE APPROVED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION W.E.F. 01.04.2013 B Y THE ORDER PASSED BY HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, AO WAS NOT WITH IN HIS JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT ENTITY AND SUCH ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 28.12.2016 & 29.12.2016 ARE NULLITY AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. CONSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE NAME OF M/S. ARTSY INFRAST RUCTURE AND PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED AND M/S. ATJ IMPEX PVT. LT D. VIDE ORDERS DATED 28.12.2016 & 29.12.2016 RESPECTIVELY PASSED B Y THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE ORDERED TO BE QUAS HED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2020. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020 TS ITA NO.4694 & 4695/DEL./2017 11 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-30, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.