M/s Mani Square Ltd., Kolkata V. A.C.I.T.,Central Circle-3(2), Kolkata

ITSSA 52/KOL/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0588 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2020
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 24-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; Search and seizure; Application of stay; Procedural lapse; Scheme of amalgamation; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 292BB; 143(2); 191; 48; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (A), KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT (KZ) & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER] [THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] S.A. NOS. 06 TO 10/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AND IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 M/S. MANI SQUARE LTD..........................................................................APPELLANT 164/1, MANIKTALA MAIN ROAD, E.M. BYE PASS, KOLKATA 700 054. [PAN: AABCR 3668 M] VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), KOLKATA.......................RESPONDENT P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA. APPEARANCES BY: SHRI S.K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCATE & SHRI BHOOMIJA VERMA, ADVOCATE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI RAM BILASH MEENA, CIT, DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : OCTOBER 20, 2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 16, 2020 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT (KZ) THESE FIVE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE INVOLVING THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) 21, KOLKATA BOTH DATED 20.12.2019 AND SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED THEREIN ARE COMMON, THE SAME HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE GIVING RISE TO THESE APPEALS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASES BELONGING TO MANI GROUP INCLUDING THE TWO COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ON 22.06.2016 AS WELL AS ON SUBSEQUENT DATES. AFTER THE SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION, HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT PASSED TWO ORDERS DATED 13.08.2016 AND 12.12.2016 WHEREBY M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. GOT AMALGAMATED INTO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY NAMELY M/S. MANI SQUARE LTD. WITH EFFECT FROM THE APPOINTED DATE I.E. 01.04.2013. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, NOTICES U/S 153A WERE ISSUED BY THE AO FOR A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AS WELL AS IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2012-13. IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID NOTICES, ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A OF THE ACT FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR IN CASE OF SB PVT. LTD. IN CASE OF IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE LTD. 2011 - 12 8,11,10,800/ - 7,72,370/ - 2012 - 13 1,90,33,014/ - 10,23,170/ - 2013 - 14 6,76,00,960/ - - 3. AGAINST ALL THE FIVE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A, APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) CHALLENGING THE ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SAID APPEAL AND CONFIRMING ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE 3 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AO TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, HE DISMISSED THE SAID APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS TWO SEPARATE APPELLATE ORDERS BOTH DATED 20.12.2019. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF ALL THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATIONS ON THE GROUND THAT BOTH THE COMPANIES NAMELY M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HAVING BEEN ALREADY MERGED/AMALGAMATED WITH M/S. MANI SQUARE LTD. VIDE ORDERS DATED 09.02.2016 AND 12.12.2016 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WERE NOT IN EXISTENCE ON 31.12.2012 WHEN THE ORDERS U/S 143(3)/153A CAME TO BE PASSED BY THE AO AND THE SAID ORDERS PASSED IN THE CASE OF NON- EXISTENT ASSESSEES WERE BAD IN LAW WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. SINCE THIS PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS TO ADJUDICATE UPON THE SAID ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ADOPT IT AND WE PROCEED TO CONSIDER AND DECIDE THE SAME FIRST. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE OUTSET, INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF ORDER DATED 28.09.2016 PASSED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT WHEREBY M/S. 4 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. STOOD MERGED WITH M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER STILL ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S 153A ON 30.01.2018 IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. FOR A.Y. 2011-12, 2012- 13 AND 2013-14 (COPIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 82 TO 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY RAISED OBJECTION TO THE SAID NOTICES VIDE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 04.10.2018 POINTING OUT SPECIFICALLY TO THE AO THAT SUCH NOTICES ISSUED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT ENTITIES WERE INVALID. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HOWEVER STILL ISSUED NOTICES U/S 142(2) ON 05.10.2018 FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2013-14 IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY (COPIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 165 TO 167 OF THE PAPER BOOK) HE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COMMON NOTICE DATED 11.09.2019 ISSUED BY THE AO FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION (COPY PLACED AT PAGE NO. 176 OF THE PAPER BOOK) U/S 142(1) TO POINT OUT EVEN THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO IN THE NON-EXISTENT ENTITY I.E. M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3)/153A FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2011-12, 2012-13 AND 2013-14 WERE MADE BY THE AO IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. WHEN THE SAID ENTITY WAS NOT IN EXISTENT. HE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY HIM U/S 143(3)/153A FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE INVALID, AS THE SAME WERE IN THE 5 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., THE NON-EXISTENT ENTITY WHICH HAD ALREADY MERGED / AMALGAMATED INTO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.08.2020 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NOS. 58 TO 62/KOL/2019 AND IT(SS)A NOS. 75 TO 78/KOL/2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 143(3)/153A OF THE ACT BY THE AO IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT ENTITIES WHICH HAD ALREADY MERGED / AMALGAMATED INTO THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY, M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. WERE CANCELLED BY THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THE SAME INVALID. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE FACTS INVOLVED IN IT(SS)A NOS. 51 & 52/KOL/2020 ARE SIMILAR IN AS MUCH AS THE NOTICES U/S 153A (COPIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 44 & 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WERE ISSUED BY THE AO ON 05.02.2018 IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., A COMPANY WHICH HAD ALREADY MERGED/AMALGAMATED INTO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY I.E. M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. VIDE ORDER BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DATED 12.12.2016 AND EVEN AFTER GIVING INTIMATION OF THE MERGER/AMALGAMATION IN WRITING TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 23.02.2018, THE AO STILL ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) (COPIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 127 & 128 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ON 05.10.2018 IN THE NAME OF THE NON-EXISTENT ENTITIES I.E. M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 05.10.2018 IN THE 6 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 NAME OF NON-EXISTENT ENTITY I.E. M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. AND EVEN THE ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2012-13 U/S 143(3)/153A WERE MADE BY HIM ON 31.03.2018 IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY WHICH HAD ALREADY MERGED/AMALGAMATED INTO ASSESSEE- COMPANY M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE-COMPANY RENDERED VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.08.2020 (SUPRA), THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS FOR BOTH THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2012-13 AND 2013-14 THUS WAS VOID AB INITIO AND THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED IN THE PURSUANCE OF THE SAME U/S 143(3)/153A FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2012-13 IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. A NON- EXISTENT ENTITIES ARE BAD IN LAW WHICH ARE LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 7. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S 143(3)/153A FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO IN THE NAME OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AMALGAMATED INTO M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. VIDE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAS ORDER DATED 30.08.2016 IN C.P. NO. 160 OF 2015 CONNECTED WITH C.A. NO. 191 OF 2014 AND IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VIDE HONBLE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTAS ORDER DATED 12.12.2016 IN C.P. NO. 864 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH C.A. NO. 322 OF 2016. HE HAS 7 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 CONTENDED THAT THE SAID ORDERS THUS HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY, M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD AND THE NAMES OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS COULD NOT HAVE ANY MATERIAL IMPACT ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE NAMES OF M/S. SAMUDRA VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. AND M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN CONSOLIDATED MANNER AND SINCE HE HAS PASSED HIS APPELLATE ORDERS IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATING COMPANY NAMELY M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD., THE LEGAL ISSUE AS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SURVIVE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVING IDENTICAL AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAD COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND VIDE A COMMON ORDER DATED 06.08.2020 (SUPRA) PASSED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S 143(3) / 153A FOR A.Y. 2013-14 TO 2017-18 IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQ CITY INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., A NON- EXISTENT ENTITY WHICH HAD ALREADY AMALGAMATED INTO M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. WERE HELD TO BE INVALID BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 81 TO 85 OF ITS ORDER: 81. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE NOTE THAT THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE COMPANY PETITION NO. 864 OF 2016 CONNECTED WITH THE COMPANY PETITION NO. 322 OF 2016 HAS PASSED AN ORDER DATED 06.03.2017 IN THE CASE OF M/S. TOLLYGUNGE ESTATE PVT. LTD. (DEMERGED COMPANY OF M/S. IQCIPL,( TRANSFEROR 8 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 COMPANY) AND M/S. MSPL, (TRANSFEREE COMPANY) WHICH IS FOUND PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK I WHEREIN M/S. IQCIPL HAS BEEN MERGED WITH M/S. MSPL. THUS, WE NOTE FROM THE AFORESAID FACTS THAT THE DEMERGED COMPANY (M/S. MSPL) AND THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY (M/S. IQCIPL) HAS BEEN MERGED WITH THE TRANSFEREE COMPANY (M/S. MSPL)W.E.F. 01.04.2015 (APPOINTED DATE) VIDE ORDER OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DATED 06.03.2017. IT IS NOTED THAT M/S. MSPL HAD INFORMED THE AO ABOUT THE AMALGAMATION OF M/S. IQCIPL WITH IT VIDE LETTER DATED 23.02.2018 WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 47 OF PAPER BOOK. THE INTIMATION REGARDING THE AMALGAMATION OF M/S IQCIPL WITH M/S MSPL WAS ALSO GIVEN IN THEIR SUBSEQUENT LETTERS DATED 18.05.2018 AND 04.10.12018. DESPITE BEING INFORMED ABOUT THE AMALGAMATION, IT IS NOTED FROM PAGE 152 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THAT THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR AY 2013-14 ON 05.10.2018 IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQCIPL WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY NON-EXISTENT ON THAT DATE. THE AO THEREAFTER PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF M/S. IQCIPL WHICH WAS A NON-EXISTING COMPANY AFTER AMALGAMATING WITH M/S. MSPL BY THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DATED 06.03.2017 W.E.F. 01.04.2015. 82. IT IS BY NOW WELL SETTLED IN LAW THAT ANY NOTICE OR ORDER ISSUED IN THE NAME OF NONEXISTENT ENTITY WHICH HAS SINCE STOOD MERGED/ AMALGAMATED / DISSOLVED IS AB INITIO VOID AND BAD IN LAW. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE NOTICE ASSUMING JURISDICTION IS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY, THEN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO, IS NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. IN THIS CASE, THE MANDATORY NOTICE TO SCRUTINIZE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY (APPOINTED DATE OF AMALGAMATION DATED W.E.F. 01.04.2015) U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 05.10.2018 IN THE NAME OF THE ALREADY AMALGAMATED COMPANY/NON-EXISTING ENTITY [M/S IQCIPL] WAS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE, THE AO USURPED WITHOUT JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE NON-EXISTING ENTITY (M/S. IQCIPL). SO THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE ISSUANCE OF MANDATORY NOTICE IN THE NAME OF A NON-EXISTENT ENTITY IS AN INCURABLE DEFECT AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT CANNOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF REVENUE. INSTEAD IT IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT WHICH RENDERS THE PROCEEDINGS / ASSESSMENT NON-EST IN THE EYES OF LAW. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION FINDS SUPPORT IN THE JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE VS. CIT (1990) 186 ITR 278 (SC) AND M/S. SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT (2012) 247 CTR 500 (DEL) WHICH DECISION WAS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE NON-EXISTING ENTITY M/S. IQCIPL RENDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 TO BE A NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 5. GENERALLY, WHERE ONLY ONE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN CHANGE AND THE RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND CREDITORS ARE VARIED, IT AMOUNTS TO 9 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 RECONSTRUCTION OR REORGANISATION OR SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. IN AMALGAMATION TWO OR MORE COMPANIES ARE FUSED INTO ONE BY MERGER OR BY TAKING OVER BY ANOTHER. RECONSTRUCTION OR 'AMALGAMATION' HAS NOPRECISE LEGA1 MEANING. THE AMALGAMATION IS A BLENDING OF TWO OR MORE EXISTING UNDERTAKINGS INTO ONE UNDERTAKING, THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EACH BLENDING COMPANY BECOME SUBSTANTIALLY THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE COMPANY WHICH IS TO CARRY ON THE BLENDED UNDERTAKINGS. THERE MAY BE AMALGAMATION EITHER BY THE TRANSFER OF TWO OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS TO A NEW COMPANY, OR BY THE TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS TO AN EXISTING COMPANY. STRICTLY AMALGAMATION DOES NOT COVER THE MERE ACQUISITION BY A COMPANY OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF OTHER COMPANY WHICH REMAINS IN EXISTENCE AND CONTINUES ITS UNDERTAKING BUT THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERM IS USED MAY SHOW THAT IT IS INTENDED TO INCLUDE SUCH AN ACQUISITION. SEE HALSBURYS LAWS OF ENGLAND, FOURTH EDN.., VOL. 7, PARAGRAPH 1539. TWO COMPANIES MAY JOIN TO FORM A NEW COMPANY, BUT THERE MAY BE ABSORPTION OR BLENDING OF ONE BY THE OTHER, BOTH AMOUNT TO AMALGAMATION. WHEN TWO COMPANIES ARE MERGED AND ARE SO JOINED, AS TO FORM A THIRD COMPANY OR ONE IS ABSORBED INTO ONE OR BLENDED WITH ANOTHER, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY LOSES ITS ENTITY. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE AGREE WITH THE TRIBUNALS VIEW THAT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY CEASED TO EXIST IN THE EYE OF IAW, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WAS NOT LIABLE TO PAY TAX ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 58,735. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AND ANSWER THE QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REVENUE. THERE WILL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 83. NOW WE DEAL WITH THE LD. CIT, DRS CONTENTION THAT, SINCE THE CAUSE TITLE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BORE THE NAMES OF BOTH AMALGAMATING COMPANY M/S. IQCIPL AND THE NAME OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY, M/S. MSPL, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHALL SURVIVE AND CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. IN THIS REGARD, WE NOTE THAT THIS IDENTICAL ARGUMENT WAS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LIMITED REPORTED IN 416 ITR 613 WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT DEALT WITH IT AS FOLLOWS: 17. MR ZOHEB HOSSAIN, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT: (I) THE HIGH COURT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143 (3) ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY, WHICH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE, IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE NAMES OF BOTH THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY AND THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY WERE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER; (II) EVEN ON THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED INCORRECTLY IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY, IT WOULD 10 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AMOUNT TO A 'MISTAKE, DEFECT OR OMISSION' WHICH IS CURABLE UNDER SECTION 292B WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS, 'IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT, IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOSE' OF THE ACT; (III) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS IN APPEAL, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY WAS DULY REPRESENTED BY THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY. NO PREJUDICE WAS CAUSED TO ANY OF THE PARTIES BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HENCE RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INVALID ON A 'MERE TECHNICALITY' WOULD BE INCORRECT IN LAW. THERE WAS EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THERE WAS NO DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF THOSE WHO PARTICIPATED ABOUT THE ENTITY IN RELATION TO WHICH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TOOK PLACE; 84. WE NOTE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ANSWERING THE QUESTION AGAINST THE REVENUE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, HELD THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE FINAL ORDER CONTAINED THE NAMES OF THE AMALGAMATING AND THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY, SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF NON-EXISTENT ENTITY, IT RENDERED THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENT ORDER TO BE NULLITY IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, ARE AS FOLLOWS: 19. WHILE ASSESSING THE MERITS OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IT IS NECESSARY AT THE OUTSET TO ADVERT TO CERTAIN SIGNIFICANT FACETS OF THE PRESENT CASE: (I) FIRSTLY, THE INCOME WHICH IS SOUGHT TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE CHARGE OF TAX FOR AY 2012-13 IS THE INCOME OF THE ERSTWHILE ENTITY (SPIL) PRIOR TO AMALGAMATION. THIS IS ON ACCOUNT OF A TRANSFER PRICING ADDITION OF RS. 78.97 CRORES; (II) SECONDLY, UNDER THE APPROVED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, THE TRANSFEREE HAS ASSUMED THE LIABILITIES OF THE TRANSFEROR COMPANY, INCLUDING TAX LIABILITIES; (III) THIRDLY, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION APPROVED UNDER SECTION 394 OF THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 IS THAT THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY CEASED TO EXIST. IN SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE LTD., (SUPRA) THE PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN FORMULATED BY THIS COURT IN THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: '5. GENERALLY, WHERE ONLY ONE COMPANY IS INVOLVED IN CHANGE AND THE RIGHTS OF THE SHAREHOLDERS AND CREDITORS ARE VARIED, IT AMOUNTS TO RECONSTRUCTION OR REORGANISATION OF SCHEME OF ARRANGEMENT. IN AMALGAMATION TWO OR MORE COMPANIES ARE FUSED INTO ONE BY MERGER OR BY TAKING OVER BY ANOTHER. RECONSTRUCTION OR 'AMALGAMATION' HAS NO PRECISE LEGAL MEANING. THE AMALGAMATION IS A BLENDING OF TWO OR MORE EXISTING UNDERTAKINGS INTO ONE UNDERTAKING, THE SHAREHOLDERS OF EACH BLENDING COMPANY BECOME SUBSTANTIALLY THE SHAREHOLDERS IN THE COMPANY WHICH IS TO CARRY ON THE BLENDED UNDERTAKINGS. THERE MAY BE 11 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 AMALGAMATION EITHER BY THE TRANSFER OF TWO OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS TO A NEW COMPANY, OR BY THE TRANSFER OF ONE OR MORE UNDERTAKINGS TO AN EXISTING COMPANY. STRICTLY 'AMALGAMATION' DOES NOT COVER THE MERE ACQUISITION BY A COMPANY OF THE SHARE CAPITAL OF OTHER COMPANY WHICH REMAINS IN EXISTENCE AND CONTINUES ITS UNDERTAKING BUT THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE TERM IS USED MAY SHOW THAT IT IS INTENDED TO INCLUDE SUCH AN ACQUISITION. SEE: HALSBURY'S LAWS OF ENGLAND (4TH EDITION VOLUME 7 PARA 1539). TWO COMPANIES MAY JOIN TO FORM A NEW COMPANY, BUT THERE MAY BE ABSORPTION OR BLENDING OF ONE BY THE OTHER, BOTH AMOUNT TO AMALGAMATION. WHEN TWO COMPANIES ARE MERGED AND ARE SO JOINED, AS TO FORM A THIRD COMPANY OR ONE IS ABSORBED INTO ONE OR BLENDED WITH ANOTHER, THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY LOSES ITS ENTITY.' (IV) FOURTHLY, UPON THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY CEASING TO EXIST, IT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A PERSON UNDER SECTION 2(31) OF THE ACT 1961 AGAINST WHOM ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED OR AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED; (V) FIFTHLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WAS ISSUED ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2013 TO THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY, SPIL, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY A NOTICE TO IT UNDER SECTION 142(1); (VI) SIXTHLY, PRIOR TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WAS ISSUED, THE SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION HAD BEEN APPROVED ON 29 JANUARY 2013 BY THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956 WITH EFFECT FROM 1 APRIL 2012; (VII) SEVENTHLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSUMED JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN PURSUANCE OF THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2). THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ON 2 APRIL 2013, THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY MSIL HAD ADDRESSED A COMMUNICATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTIMATING THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION. IN THE ABOVE CONSPECTUS OF THE FACTS, THE INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST AN ENTITY WHICH HAD CEASED TO EXIST WAS VOID AB INITIO. 20. IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT, (SUPRA) A DIVISION BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT DEALT WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER AN ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF A COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN AMALGAMATED AND HAS BEEN DISSOLVED IS NULL AND VOID OR, WHETHER THE FRAMING OF AN ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF SUCH COMPANY IS MERELY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT WHICH CAN BE CURED. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT UPON A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) BEING ADDRESSED, THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY HAD BROUGHT THE FACT OF THE AMALGAMATION TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DESPITE THIS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SUBSTITUTE THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF A NON- EXISTENT COMPANY WHICH RENDERS IT VOID. THIS, IN THE VIEW OF THE HIGH COURT, WAS NOT MERELY A PROCEDURAL DEFECT. MOREOVER, THE 12 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 PARTICIPATION BY THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT SINCE THERE COULD BE NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW : '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. INSTEAD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF M/S SPICE WHICH WAS NON EXISTING ENTITY ON THAT DAY. IN SUCH PROCEEDINGS AN 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 ESTOPPEL AGAINST LAW. 12. ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT IS FRAMED IN THE 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.' FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT, (SUPRA) THE DELHI HIGH COURT QUASHED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH WERE FRAMED IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY IN: (I) DIMENSION APPARELS (SUPRA); (II) MICRON STEELS; AND (SUPRA) (III) MICRA INDIA (SUPRA). 21. IN DIMENSION APPARELS, (SUPRA) A DIVISION BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT AFFIRMED THE QUASHING OF AN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31 DECEMBER 2010. THE RESPONDENT HAD AMALGAMATED WITH ANOTHER COMPANY AND THUS, CEASED TO EXIST FROM 7 DECEMBER 2009. THE COURT REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ACT BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD USED CORRECT NOMENCLATURE IN ADDRESSING THE ASSESSEE; STATED THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAD AMALGAMATED AND MENTIONED THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY. IT WAS THE REVENUE'S CONTENTION THAT THE OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MENTION THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY IS A PROCEDURAL DEFECT. THE DELHI HIGH COURT REJECTED THIS CONTENTION. IN DOING SO, IT RELIED ON THE HOLDING IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT, (SUPRA) WHERE THE HIGH COURT EXPRESSLY CLARIFIED THAT 'THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT AGAINST A NON-EXISTING ENTITY/PERSON' IS A JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT. THE DIVISION BENCH ALSO RELIED ON THE HOLDING 13 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT (SUPRA) THAT PARTICIPATION BY THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY IN PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT CURE THE DEFECT AS 'THERE CAN BE NO ESTOPPEL IN LAW', TO AFFIRM THE QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 22. IN MICRON STEELS, (SUPRA) A NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO MICRON STEELS PVT LTD (ORIGINAL ASSESSEE) AFTER IT HAD AMALGAMATED WITH LAKHANPAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. A DIVISION BENCH OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT UPHELD THE SETTING ASIDE OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS, NOTING THAT SPICE ENTERTAINMENT (SUPRA) IS AN AUTHORITY FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY DUE TO THE AMALGAMATION ORDER, WOULD RENDER THE ASSESSMENT A NULLITY. 23. IN MICRA INDIA, (SUPRA) THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE MICRA INDIA PVT. LTD HAD AMALGAMATED WITH DYNAMIC BUILDMART (P) LTD. NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE BY THE REVENUE AFTER THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION HAD BEEN COMMUNICATED TO IT. THE COURT NOTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE WAS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AND THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER DID NOT THE TAKE THE REMEDIAL MEASURE OF TRANSPOSING THE TRANSFEREE AS THE COMPANY WHICH HAD TO BE ASSESSED. INSTEAD, THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE WAS DESCRIBED AS ONE IN EXISTENCE AND THE ORDER MENTIONED THE TRANSFEREE'S NAME BELOW THAT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE. THE DIVISION BENCH ADVERTED TO THE JUDGMENT IN DIMENSION APPARELS (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HIGH COURT HAD DISCUSSED THE RULING IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT (SUPRA). IT WAS HELD THAT THIS WAS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONTRARY TO LAW, HAVING BEEN COMPLETED AGAINST A NON-EXISTENT COMPANY. .... 33. IN THE PRESENT CASE, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INFORMED OF THE AMALGAMATING COMPANY HAVING CEASED TO EXIST AS A RESULT OF THE APPROVED SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION, THE JURISDICTIONAL NOTICE WAS ISSUED ONLY IN ITS NAME. THE BASIS ON WHICH JURISDICTION WAS INVOKED WAS FUNDAMENTALLY AT ODDS WITH THE LEGAL PRINCIPLE THAT THE AMALGAMATING ENTITY CEASES TO EXIST UPON THE APPROVED 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 JUDGMENT OF A COORDINATE BENCH OF TWO LEARNED JUDGES WHICH DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT (SUPRA) ON 2 NOVEMBER 2017. THE DECISION IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT WHILE DISMISSING THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION FOR AY 2011- 2012. IN DOING SO, THIS COURT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION IN SPICE ENFOTAINMENT (SUPRA). (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 14 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 85. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE RATIO DECIDENTI OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND SINCE IN THIS CASE, THE MANDATORY NOTICE TO SCRUTINIZE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY (APPOINTED DATE OF AMALGAMATION DATED W.E.F. 01.04.2015) U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 05.10.2018 IN THE NAME OF THE ALREADY AMALGAMATED COMPANY/NON-EXISTING ENTITY [M/S IQCIPL] WAS AB-INITIO VOID AND THEREFORE, THE AO USURPED TO ASSESS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN-RESPECT OF THE NON-EXISTING ENTITY (M/S. IQCIPL). SO THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASSUMING VALID JURISDICTION IS NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.2018 FRAMED IN THE MATTERS OF M/S IQCIPL IS NON-EST AND SO NULL IN THE EYES OF LAW AND, THEREFORE, ALL THE ADDITIONS AGAINST M/S. IQCIPL WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) STANDS DELETED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT THEREFORE STANDS ALLOWED. 9. AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AS WELL AS ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT THERETO ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE APPEALS DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.08.2020 (SUPRA), WE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06.08.2020 AND CANCEL ALL THE FIVE ORDERS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 10. KEEPING IN VIEW OUR DECISION RENDERED ABOVE ON THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENTS MADE BY THE AO U/S 143(3)/153A FOR ALL THE THREE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THESE APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS OR ACADEMIC AND WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO DECIDE THE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15 M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD. S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 & IT(SS)A. NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 12. AS A RESULT OF THE DISPOSAL OF THE CORRESPONDING APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NOS. 48 TO 52/KOL/2020, THE STAY APPLICATIONS BEING S.A. NOS. 6 TO 10/KOL/2020 HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH DECEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- (A. T. VARKEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 16/12/2020 BISWAJIT, SR. PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. MANI SQUARE PVT. LTD., 164/1, MANIKTALA MAIN ROAD, E.M. BYE PASS, KOLKATA 700 054. 2. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), KOLKATA. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, KOLKATA