Gestener (India) Limited (Since merged with Ricoh India Limited), Kolkata V. D.C.I.T Cir - 1,kolkata., Kolkata

ITA 619/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1682 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT PATNI
• Keywords: Procedural lapse; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.619 & 981/KOL/2013 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. , AY 1999-2000 , A , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE .., /AND . , ) [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI M. BALAGANESH , AM] I.T.A. NO. 619/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH RICHO INDIA LTD.) (PAN: AABCG1103A) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. APPELLANT RESPONDENT & I.T.A. NO. 981/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1999-2000 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. VS. GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH RICHO INDIA LTD.) APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 10.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 16.08.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI AMIT PATNI, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT ORDER PER SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM BOTH THESE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XX, KOLKATA DATED 03.01.2013 FOR AY 1999 -2000. SINCE BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN IENCE, WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147/254 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE 2 ITA NOS.619 & 981/KOL/2013 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. , AY 1999-2000 QUASHED. IN THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PLEA THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 31.12.2008 U/S. 143 (3)/147/254 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WAS PASSED ON A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY HAVING AMALGAMATED WITH RICOH INDIA LTD. W.E.F. 01.04.2004. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AGAINST THE NON-EXISTING COMPANY DOES NOT STAND IN THE EYE OF LAW. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN AY 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DAT ED 15.03.2006 AND 08.12.2006 WERE PASSED IN THE NAME OF GESTETNER INDIA LIMITED AND O N APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION DATED 17.02.2016 IN ASSESSEES OWN C ASE FOR AYS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05. ON QUERY FROM THE BENCH, THE LD. SR. DR FAIRLY CONC EDED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED O N A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY I.E. GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. AND WHEREAS NO ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED O N RICOH INDIA LTD. 3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3)/147/254 OF THE ACT BY THE AO WAS PASSED ON A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY HAVING AMALGAMATED WITH RICOH INDIA LTD. W.E.F. 01.04.2004 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE COORDINA TE BENCH DECISION DATED 17.02.2016 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AYS. 2003-04 AND 2004-05, W HEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUG H FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE FACTUAL POSITION IS THAT FOR AY 2003-04 ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE AO U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 15.03.2006 AND F OR AY 2004-05 ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 08.12.2006 ON A NON-EX ISTENT COMPANY. THE AO WAS INFORMED OF THIS FACT OF AMALGAMATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH R ICOH INDIA LTD. VIDE LETTER DATED 25.01.2006, WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN RECORD OF ASSESSM ENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONB LE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., SUPRA, WHEREIN HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. SECTION 481 OF THE COMPANIES ACT PROVIDES FOR DISSOLUTION OF T HE COMPANY. THE COMPANY JUDGE IN THE HIGH COURT CAN ORDER DISSOLUTI ON OF A COMPANY ON THE GROUNDS STATED THEREIN. THE EFFECT OF THE DISSOLUTION IS TH AT THE COMPANY NO MORE SURVIVES. THE DISSOLUTION PUTS AN END TO THE EXISTENCE OF THE COM PANY. IT IS HELD IN M.H. SMITH (PLANT HIRE) LTD. VS. D.L. MAINWARING (T/A INSHORE), 1986 BCLC 342 (CA) THAT 'ONCE A COMPANY IS DISSOLVED IT BECOMES A NON-EXISTENT PART Y AND THEREFORE NO ACTION CAN BE BROUGHT IN ITS NAME. THUS AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHIC H WAS SUBROGATED TO THE RIGHTS OF 3 ITA NOS.619 & 981/KOL/2013 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. , AY 1999-2000 ANOTHER INSURED COMPANY WAS HELD NOT TO BE ENTITLED TO MAINTAIN AN ACTION IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AFTER THE LATTER HAD BEEN DISSOLVED' . 11. AFTER THE SANCTION OF THE SCHEME ON 11TH APRIL, 2004, THE SPICE CEASES TO EXIT W.E.F. 1ST JULY, 2003. EVEN IF SPICE HAD FILED THE RETURNS , IT BECAME INCUMBENT UPON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTITUTE THE SUCCESSOR IN PLACE OF THE SAID DEAD PERSON . WHEN NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WAS SENT, THE APPELLANT/AMALGAMATED COMPANY APPEARED AND BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO. HE, HOWEVER, DID NOT SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT ON RECORD. INS TEAD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF M/S SPICE WHICH WAS NON E XISTING ENTITY ON THAT DAY. IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE NAME OF M/S SPICE WOULD CLEARLY BE VOID. SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE TREATED AS PROCEDURAL DEFECT. MERE PARTICIPATION BY THE APPELLANT WOULD BE OF NO EFFECT AS THERE IS NO ESTO PPEL AGAINST LAW. 12. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN T HE NAME OF NON-EXISTING ENTITY, IT DOES NOT REMAIN A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY OF THE NATURE WHICH COULD BE CURED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. SECTION 292B OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- '292B. NO RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMM ONS OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUE OR TAKEN OR PURPORTED TO HAVE BEEN FURNISHED OR MADE OR ISSUED OR TAKEN IN PURSUANCE OF ANY OF THE PROVISIO NS OF THIS ACT SHALL BE INVALID OR SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INVALID MERELY BY REASONS OF ANY MI STAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OT HER PROCEEDING IF SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEE DINGS IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURP OSE OF THIS ACT.' 13. THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT STATED THE EFFE CT OF THIS PROVISION IN CIT VS. NORTON MOTORS, 275 ITR 595 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 'A READING OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED PROVISION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT A MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTIC E, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO INVALIDATE AN ACTION TAKEN BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY, PROVIDED THAT SUCH RETURN OF INCOME, ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE P ROVISIONS OF THE ACT. TO PUT IT DIFFERENTLY, SECTION 292B CAN BE RELIED UPON FOR RESISTING A CHALLENGE TO TH ENOTICE, ETC., ONLY IF THERE IS A TECHNICAL DEFECT OR OMISSION IN IT. HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THAT SECTION FROM WHICH IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE SAME CAN BE RELIED UPON FOR CURING A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT IN THE ASSE SSMENT NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE NOTICE, SUMMONS OR OTHER PROCEEDING TAKEN BY AN AUTHORITY SUFFERS FROM AN INHERENT LACUNA AFFECTING HIS/ITS JURISDICTION, THE SAME CANNOT BE CURED BY HAVING RESORT TO SECTION 292B . 14. THE ISSUE AGAIN CROPPED UP BEFORE THE COURT IN CIT VS. HARJINDER KAUR (2009) 222 CTR 254 (P&H). THAT WAS A CASE WHERE RETURN IN QUES TION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 4 ITA NOS.619 & 981/KOL/2013 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. , AY 1999-2000 NEITHER SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR VERIFIED IN TERM S OF THE MANDATE OF SECTION 140 OF THE ACT. THE COURT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT SUCH A RETUR N CANNOT BE TREATED AS RETURN EVEN A RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS INHERENT DEFE CT COULD NOT BE CURED INSPITE OF THE DEEMING EFFECT OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE RETURN WAS ABSOLUTELY I NVALID AND ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE MADE ON A INVALID RETUR N. IN THE PROCESS, THE COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 'HAVING GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE S UBMISSION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT DO NOT AUTHORIZE THE AO TO IGNORE A DEFECT OF A SUBSTANTIVE NATURE AND IT IS, THEREFORE, THAT THE AFORESAID PROVISION CATEGORICAL LY RECORDS THAT A RETURN WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVALID, IF THE SAME 'IN SUBSTANCE AND E FFECT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT'. I NSOFAR AS THE RETURN UNDER REFERENCE IS CONCERNED, IN TERMS OF SECTION 140 OF THE 1961 ACT, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE EVEN A RETURN FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, AS THE SAME DOES NOT EVEN BEAR HER SIGNATURES AND HAD NOT EVEN BEEN VERIFIED BY HER. I N THE AFORESAID VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ACCEPT THAT THE RETURN AL LEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDIN G TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS ACT. THUS VIEWED, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO ACCE PT THE CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT. THE RETURN UNDER REFERENCE, WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION BY THE REVENUE, WAS AN ABSOLUTELY INVALID RETURN AS IT HAD A GLARING IN HERENT DEFECT WHICH COULD NOT BE CURED IN SPITE OF THE DEEMING EFFECT OF SECTION 292B OF THE 1961 ACT.' 15. LIKEWISE, IN THE CASE OF SRI NATH SURESH CHAND RAM NARESH VS. CIT (2006) 280 ITR 396, THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ISSUE O F NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT TO THE VALI DITY OF ANY ASSESSMENT ORDER TO BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND WHEN SUCH A NOTICE IS NOT ISSUED AN D ASSESSMENT MADE, SUCH A DEFECT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CURED UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THE COURT OBSERVED THAT THIS PROVISIONS CONDON ES THE INVALIDITY WHICH ARISES MERELY BY MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION IN A NOTICE, IF IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURP OSE OF THIS ACT. SINCE NO VALID NOTICE WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE TO REASSESS THE INCOME, ALL THE CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NULL AND VOID AND IT WAS NOT A CASE OF IRREGULARITY . THEREFORE, SECTION 292B OF THE ACT HAD NO APPLICATION. 16. WHEN WE APPLY THE RATIO OF AFORESAID CASES TO T HE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WOULD BE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXIST ING ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY B UT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON . 5 ITA NOS.619 & 981/KOL/2013 GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. , AY 1999-2000 17. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, CLEARL Y UNSUSTAINABLE. WE, THUS, DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAI NST THE REVENUE AND ALLOW THESE APPEALS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., SUPRA, AND THE FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. GOT MERGED WITH RICOH INDIA LTD. W.E.F. 01.04.2005 BY THE ORD ERS OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DATED 22.06.2005 AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 30.06.2005, THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) FOR AY 2003-04 VIDE DATED 15.03.2006 AND FOR AY 2004-05 VI DE DATED 08.12.2006 IS ON NON-EXISTENT PERSON AND HENCE, QUASHED. THIS LEGAL ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION CITED SUPRA, WE DECIDE THIS LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE 4. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE QUASHING THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR , WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ADJUDICATE OTHER ISSUES OF ASSESSEES APPEALS AS WELL AS REVEN UES APPEALS ON MERIT BECAUSE IT IS ONLY ACADEMIC. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16.08.2017 SD/- SD/- (M. BALAGANESH) (ABY. T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16TH AUGUST, 2017 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT GESTETNER (INDIA) LTD. (SINCE MERGED WI TH RICOH INDIA LTD.), BLOCK GP, SECTOR-V, SALT LAKE ELECTRONIC COM PLEX, KOLKATA-700 091. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, CIRCLE-1, KOLKATA. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SR. PVT. SECRETARY