DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s. Samsung Telecommunication India P. Ltd., Gurgaon

ITA 6315/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 97121 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Procedural lapse; Scheme of amalgamation
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.6452/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. VS DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), ERSTWHILE SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS NEW D ELHI. I.P. LT.D, 3 RD FLOOR, TOWER C, VIPUL TECH SQUARE, GOLF COURSE ROAD, SECTOR-43, GURGAON. (PAN: AAJCS3356B) I.T.A.NO.6315/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1), VS SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRO NICS PVT. LTD. NEW DELHI. GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI GAURA V JAIN, MS BHAVTA KUMARI, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATIQ AHMAD, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 17.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.08.2015 O R D E R PER BENCH THESE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-X, NEW DELHI DATED 18.9 .2013 IN APPEAL NO. 86/09-10 FOR AY 2006-07. ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 2 ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6452/DEL/13 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ORDER FRAM ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE ACT') ON SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS INDIA P. LTD. ( 'STIPL'), THE ENTITY WHICH AMALGAMATED WITH SAMSUNG INDIA ELE CTRONICS P. LTD. AND CEASED TO EXIST, W .E. F, 0 I. 1 0.2008, I S WITHOUT JURISDICTION, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 1.2 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PURSUANT T O AMALGAMATION, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY GETS DISSOLV ED WITHOUT WINDING UP AND CEASES TO EXIST IN THE EYES OF THE LAW AND NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE VALIDLY FRAMED IN THE NAME OF SUCH ENTITY. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEARS) ER RED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF R S.35,31 ,0001- MADE BY' THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC SALES, ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH PROVISION W AS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC DATA AND/OR ACTUARIAL STUDY. 2.1 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN ALLEGING THAT THERE WAS NO BASI S FOR APPLYING THE DATA OF INTERNATIONAL GROUP COMPANY FOR THE EAR LIER YEARS FOR CORNPUTATION OF PROVISION FOR WARRANTY BY THE APPEL LANT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. 2.2 THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT PROVISION FOR WARRANTY MADE IN SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ALLOWED BY T HE DRP ON THE GROUND THAT HE SAME WAS BASED ON SCIENTIFIC EST IMATE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APP EAL ARE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATION INDIA PVT. LTD. (STIPL) WAS AMALGAMATED WITH SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD .(HEREINAFTER SIEPL) W.E.F. 1.4.2008 IN PURSUANCE TO THE ORDER OF HONBL E HIGH COURT DATED ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 3 22.8.2008. THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2006 FOR AY 2006-07 AND THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. ST IPL. THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY SIEPL SUBMITTED A LETTER BEFORE THE AO REGA RDING AMALGAMATION AND SUBSEQUENT DISSOLUTION OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL WITH AMALGAMATED COMPANY SIEPL DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE P RESENT APPELLANT SIEPL IN THE SAID LETTER DATED 3.10.2008 INFORMED THAT TH E SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION HAS BEEN SANCTIONED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DA TED 22.8.2008 AND THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY VIZ. STIPL HAS ACCORDINGLY CEAS ED TO EXIST IN PURSUANCE TO FILING SUCH ORDER BEFORE THE REGISTRAR OF COMPAN IES (ROC). AS PER SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT SIEPL, LETTERS DATED 1 7.11.2009 AND 24.11.2009 WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO DULY DISCLOSING THE F ACTUM OF AMALGAMATION AND SUBSEQUENT DISSOLUTION OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL WITH AMALGAMATED COMPANY SIEPL I.E. PRESENT APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE AO PASSED IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.11.09 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. STIPL. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A ) RAISING THE LEGAL OBSTRUCTION THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT COMPANY WHICH IS VOID AB I NITIO AND BAD IN LAW, THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED. WHILE DEALI NG WITH GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DISMISSED LEGAL CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 4 THE AO HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE RE TURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AR HAS NOWHERE POINTED OUT THAT TH ROUGH ITS ORDER OF AMALGAMATION, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD PASS ED ANY SUCH ORDER WHERE ANY EXISTING LIABILITIES AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE STI PL I.E. AMALGAMATING COMPANY WERE ALLOWED TO LAPSE WHILE THE AMALGAMATION WAS CA RRIED OUT. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THEREFORE IT IS ABSURD TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT THAT ONLY BECAUSE THE AMALGAMATION COMPANY STIPL WAS MERGED WITH AMAL GAMATED COMPANY SIEPL, THERE WOULD BE NO OBLIGATION OR LEGAL FOLLOW UP OF THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. NOW, THE EMPTY HANDED ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE SECO ND APPEAL. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE REVENUE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS APPEA L CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ROYALTY EXPEN SES AND ADVERTISEMENT AND SALES PROMOTION EXPENSES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE LETTER DATED 3.10.2008 FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INFORMING THE CLAIM OF AMALGAMATION SAN CTIONED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 20.8.2008 W.E.F. 1/4/2008 TH AT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL HAS CEASED TO EXIST PURSUANT TO FILIN G SUCH AMALGAMATION ORDER BEFORE THE ROC BUT THE AO PASSED IMPUGNED ASSESSMEN T ORDER ON 30.11.2009 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT A MALGAMATING COMPANY, ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 5 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDIC TION, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. LD. COUNSEL ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTERS DATED 17.11.09 AND 24.11.200 9 REPEATEDLY INFORMED THE AO DISCLOSING THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION AND SUBSEQUE NT DISSOLUTION OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY BUT THE AO IGNORED THIS IMPORTA NT LEGAL SITUATION AND PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 30.11.09 IN THE NAME O F NON-EXISTENT COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE HELD AS WITHOUT JURISDIC TION, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. 6. LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SUBMITTED THAT NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE APPELLANT EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT, IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE AO PASSED AN ORDER IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT AMALGAMATING COMPANY I.E. STIPL BECAUSE IN THIS SITUATION ALSO, THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO PAY TAX EITHER ITSELF OR ON BEHALF OF THE NON-EXISTENT AMALGAMATING COMPANY. LD. DR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING FIRST APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED ALL RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND F ACTUM OF THE PRESENT CASE AND RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT IT IS ABSURD TO ACCEPT THE L EGAL ARGUMENT THAT ONLY BECAUSE STIPL WAS MERGED WITH SIEPL, THERE WOULD BE NO OBLI GATION OR LEGAL FOLLOW UP OF THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. LD. DR VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT WHILE THE RETURN WAS F ILED BY AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL, THE ORDER PASSED IN ITS NAME MAY BE TREATED AS IRREGULAR BUT THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD AS VOID AB INITIO OR BAD IN LAW. ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 6 7. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US, INTER ALIA, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT( A), WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISED THIS LEGAL ISSUE BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AND CONCL USION:- ADJUDICATION: 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ARG UMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND VA RIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AR, THIS GROUND I S BEING FINALIZED AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- (I) ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME HAD BEEN FILED BY STIPL ON 30- 11-2006 AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) ETC. WERE ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED TILE ASSE SSMENT U/S 143(3) ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY, STIPL, IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. ALSO FOLLO WED THE DUE PROCEDURE OF LAW AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN TH E NAME OF M/S STIPL. (II) THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT SIN CE M/S STIPL HAD CEASED TO EXIST AS IT WAS AMALGAMATED WIT H SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD., THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICA TION FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. THE A. R. HAS RELIED UPON CERTAIN J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHERE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT AND THE CO MPANY HAD BEEN DISSOLVED OR THE INDIVIDUAL OR HUF WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE M/S STIPL HAD GOT AMAL GAMATED INTO ANOTHER COMPANY ALONG WITH ITS ASSETS, LIABILI TIES, RIGHTS AND LEGAL OBLIGATIONS. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT JUS T BECAUSE A COMPANY HAD AMALGAMATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY WOULD NOT RESULT IN ALL LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO CEASE TO EXIST. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS NOWHERE POINTED OUT THAT THROUGH ITS ORDER OF AMALGAMATION, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAD PASS ED ANY SUCH ORDER WHERE ANY EXISTING LIABILITIES AND OBLIG ATIONS OF ANY STIPL WERE ALLOWED TO LAPSE WHILE THE AMALGAMATION WAS ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 7 CARRIED OUT. THEREFORE, IT IS ABSURD TO ACCEPT THE ARGUMENT ONLY BECAUSE M/S STIPL WERE MERGED WITH M/S SAMSUNG INDI A ELECTRONICS P. LTD. THERE WOULD BE NO OBLIGATION OR LEGAL FOLLOW UP OF THE INCOME TAX PROVISIONS TO COMPLETE THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, I DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 8. AT THIS JUNCTURE, WE ARE REQUIRED TO CONSIDER TH E RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF SPICE IN FOTAINMENT LTD. VS CIT (2012) 247 CTR (DEL) 500 WHEREIN SPEAKING FOR THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD AS UNDER:- 16. WHEN WE APPLY THE RATIO OF AFORESAID CASES TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION WO ULD BE PROVISIONS OF S. 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE. THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON- EXISTING E NTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCE DURAL IRREGULARITY BUT A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AS THERE C ANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A 'DEAD PERSON'. 17. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, CLEARL Y UNSUSTAINABLE. WE, THUS, DECIDE THE QUESTIONS OF LAW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE AND ALLOW TH ESE APPEALS. 18. WE MAY, HOWEVER, POINT OUT THAT THE RETURNS WER E FILED BY M/S SPICE ON THE DAY WHEN IT WAS IN EXISTENCE IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO CARRY OUT THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASI S OF THOSE RETURNS AFTER TAKING THE PROCEEDINGS AFRESH FROM TH E STAGE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. IN S UBSTITUTE, THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN PLACE OF M/S SPICE AND THE N ISSUE NOTICE TO THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, SUCH A COURSE OF ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE AO ONLY IF IT IS STILL PERMISSIBLE AS PER LA W AND HAS NOT BECOME TIME-BARRED. 9. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A COMP ARATIVE CHART OF THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAIN MENT LTD. (SUPRA) TO SHOW US ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 8 THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO T HAT CASE. AT THE VERY OUTSET, WE RESPECTFULLY NOTE THE DICTA LAID DOWN BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLI CABLE IN SUCH A CASE WHERE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXIST ENT AMALGAMATED COMPANY. THEIR LORDSHIPS FURTHER HELD THAT THE FRAMING OF AS SESSMENT AGAINST NON-EXISTENT 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. IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. (SU PRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE RETURNS WERE FILED BY M/S SPIC E ON THE DAY WHEN IT WAS IN EXISTENCE. IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO CARRY OUT TH E ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THOSE RETURNS AFTER TAKING THE PROCEEDINGS AFRESH F ROM THE STAGE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. IT WAS ALSO HELD THA T IN SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT/AMALGAMATED COMPANY IN THE PLACE OF AMALG AMATING COMPANY MAY BE GIVEN AND THEN NOTICE MAY BE ISSUED AS PER PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF RATIO OF DECISION OF HONBLE HI GH COURT, WHEN WE ANALYSE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT UNDISPUTEDLY AND ADMITTEDLY, THE RETURN WAS FILED B Y STIPL AMALGAMATING COMPANY ON 30.11.2006. THE AO ISSUED NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY. SUBSEQUEN TLY, LETTER DATED 3.10.2008 WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INFORMING THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATING SANCTIONED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 9 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.8.2008 AND THE AMALGAMATING COM PANY I.E. STIPL CEASED TO EXIST IN PURSUANCE TO FILING OF SUCH ORDER BEFORE T HE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES W.E.F. 1.4.2008. LETTERS DATED 17.11.2009 AND 24.1 1.09 WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO DULY DISCLOSING THE FACTUM OF AMALGAMATION A ND SUBSEQUENT DISSOLUTION OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL WITH THE AMALGAMA TED COMPANY SIEPL. HOWEVER, THE AO PASSED IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30.11.09 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT AMALGAMATING CO MPANY VIZ. STIPL. IN THE ABOVE NOTED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CLEARLY OBS ERVE THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE QUITE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES IN THE SPICE INFOTAINMENT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD T HAT THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST NON-EXISTENT ENTITY/PERSON GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER WHICH IS NOT A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY CURABLE U/S 292B OF THE ACT AND OR ANY OTHER PROVISION BUT IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT BECAUSE THERE CAN NOT BE FRAMING OF ANY ASSESSMENT AGAINST A DEAD PERSON OR ENTITY WHICH IS NON-EXISTENT ON THE DATE OF PASSING OR FRAMING ASSESSMENT ORDER. 11. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISIO N OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.11.09 PASSED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT AMALGAMATING COMPANY STIPL HAVING JURI SDICTIONAL DEFECT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND WE QUASH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, GR OUND NO. 1 AND 1.2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HEREBY ALLOWED. ITA 6452/D/13 & 6315/D/13 AY 2006-07 10 GROUND NO. 2, 2.1 AND 2.2 12. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT O RDER DATED 30.11.2009 BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, THUS, THESE GROUNDS PERTAINING TO THE MERITS DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 6315/D/2013 13. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 30.11.09 FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BY THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER , THEREFORE ALL SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS VIZ. ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALSO BECOMES U NSUSTAINABLE AND THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST FIRST APPELLA TE ORDER BECOME ACADEMIC AND INFRUCTUOUS AND WE DISMISS THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED ON LEGAL GROUNDS AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.08.2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 26TH AUGUST 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR ASSTT.REGISTRAR