Appeal Details

RSA Number 27819914 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AACCB5918E
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 278/MUM/2013
Duration Of Justice 6 year(s) 10 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant BASF INDIA LTD ( AS SUCCESSOR TO BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD IN TERMS OF THE SCHEME OF AMALAGAMATION BETWEEN BASF INDIA LTD AND BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD, MUMBAI
Respondent DCIT 6(1), MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted K
Tribunal Order Date 19-11-2019
Date Of Final Hearing 17-04-2017
Next Hearing Date 17-04-2017
First Hearing Date 17-04-2017
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 09-01-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL K BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (TP) A NO. 278 / MUM ./201 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 08 09 ) BASF INDIA LTD. PAN AA CCB5918E (AS SUCCESSOR TO BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD. IN TERMS OF SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION BETWEEN BASF INDIA LTD. AND BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD. APPROVED BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ODER DATED 14.1.2011) 1 ST FLOOR VIBGYOR TOWERS PLOT NO.C 62 G BLOCK BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX MUMBAI 400 051 . APPELLANT V/S DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 6 ( 1 ) MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.J. PARDIWALA A/W MS. HEENA DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI ANAND MOHAN DATE OF HEARING 22 .08 .2019 DATE OF ORDER 19.11.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY J.M. T HE AFORESAID APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 144C(13) 2 BASF INDIA LTD. A.Y. 2008 09 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT 'THE ACT' ) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED A PRELIMINARY ISSUE CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. SHRI P.J. PARDIWALA THE LEANED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF AN ENTITY WHICH IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE. THE LEANED SR. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY AND THE DRP HAS ALSO PASSED ITS DIRECTION BY MENTIONING THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY I.E. BASF INDIA LTD. HOWEVER THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE NON EXISTING ENTITY. THE LEANED SR. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION / MERGER WAS INTI MATED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 8 TH MARCH 2011 ALONG WITH A COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HIGH COURT APPROVING AMALGAMATION / MERGER FROM THE APPOINTED DATE OF 1 ST APRIL 2010. HE SUBMITTED IN S PITE OF BEING INTIMATED ABOUT THE AMALGAMATION / MERGER S TILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF A NON EXISTING COMPANY. THUS HE SUBMITTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BEING INVALID HAS TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT 3 BASF INDIA LTD. A.Y. 2008 09 OF SUCH CONTENTION THE LEANED SR. COUNSEL RELIED UPON THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN PCIT V/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. CIVIL APPEAL NO.5409/2019 VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 25 TH JULY 2019. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY. HE SUBMITTED IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE NAME OF THE AMALGAMATED COMPANY WAS OMITTED. HE SUBMITTED SUCH OMISSION /MIS TAKE BEING CURABLE IF THERE IS ANY DEFECT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO NON MENTIONING OF THE PROPER NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS A CURABLE DEFECT HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRAMING DE NOVO ASSESSMENT BY MENTIONING THE CORRECT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LEANED SR. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BEEN EXAMINED BY US CAREFULLY. UNDISPUTEDLY BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD. IN WHOSE NAME THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144C(13) R/W SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED ON 19 TH NOVEMBER 2012 IS NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE AS IT HAD AMALGAMATED / MERGED WITH BASF INDIA LTD. FROM THE APPOINTED DAY OF 1 ST APRIL 2010 BY VIRTUE OF A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION / M ERGER 4 BASF INDIA LTD. A.Y. 2008 09 APPROVED BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 14 TH JANUARY 2011. THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION OF BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD. WITH BASF INDIA LTD. WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER ON 8 TH MARCH 2011 ALONG WITH ALL S UPPORTING EVIDENCE. IN FACT LEARNED DRP TAKING NOTE OF THE AMALGAMATION / MERGER HAS PASSED ITS DIRECTIONS BY INCORPORATING THE NAME OF AMALGAMATED COMPANY I.E. BASF IN DIA LTD. IN SPITE OF BEING INFORMED ABOUT THE FACT THAT BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD. HAS AMALGAMATED / MERGED AND NO LONGER IN EXISTENCE STILL THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF ERSTWHILE COMPANY I.E. BASF POLYURETHANES INDIA LTD . THUS UNDISPUTEDLY THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF AN ENTITY WHICH HAS CEASED TO EXIST LONG BACK. NOW IT IS FAIRLY WELL SETTLED THAT NO ORDER CAN BE PASSED IN RESPECT OF A NON EXISTING ENTITY. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. V/S CIT [2012] 247 CTR (DEL.) 500 HAS HELD THAT ONCE A COMPANY MERGES WITH ANOTHER COMPANY BY VIRTUE OF A SCHEME OF AMALGAMATION IT WILL LOSE ITS EXISTENCE AFTER SUCH MERGER. THE AFORESAID VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS AGAIN REITER ATED IN PCIT V/S MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. [2017] 397 ITR 681 (DEL.). WHILE AFFIRMING THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) AND SPICE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE ORDER PASSED IN 5 BASF INDIA LTD. A.Y. 2008 09 RESPECT OF A NON EXISTING ENTITY IS INVALID. WHILE DOING SO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ALSO UPHELD THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE DEFECT IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF A NON EXISTING ENTITY CANNOT BE CURED UNDER SECTION 292B OF THE ACT. THUS THE RATIO DECIDENDI WHICH FOLLOWS FROM THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT AN ORDER PASSED AGAINST A NON EXISTING ENTITY HAS TO BE DECLARED AS INVALID. ADMITTEDLY IN T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF A NON EXISTING ENTITY. THEREFORE AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE DECLARED AS I NVALID. ACCORDINGLY WE DO SO AND QUASH THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER 2012. 6. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THE GROUNDS RAISED CONTESTING THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER ARE OF PURE ACADEMIC NA TURE HENCE THERE IS NO NEED TO DELIBERATE ANY FURTHER ON THESE GROUNDS. HOWEVER THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE GROUNDS ARE LEFT UPON FOR ADJUDICATION IF THEY ARISE IN ANY OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR IN FUTURE. FOR THE VERY SAME REASONS THE GROUND NO.1 HAVING BEC OME REDUNDANT IS ALSO DISMISSED. 6 BASF INDIA LTD. A.Y. 2008 09 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.11.2019 SD/ - N.K. PRADHAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI DATED: 19.11.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR ITAT MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI