Hence, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the companyrt to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the numberice was merely a technical error which companyld be companyrected 36 Civil Appeal No.
Post amalgamation, on 30 September 2013, the Chartered Accountants addressed a companymunication to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9 1 , pursuant to the numberice under Section 143 2 for an adjournment of the assessment proceedings for AY 2012 13 until the assessment proceedings for AY 2010 11 and AY 2011 12 were companypleted.
9 On 22 January 2016, the Transfer Pricing Officer8 passed an order under Section 92CA 3 determining the Arms Length Price of royalty at 3 per cent and making an adjustment of Rs.
6 On 28 November 2012, the assessee filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs.
12 On 8 October 2015, a companymunication was addressed by the DGM Finance for MSIL in response to the numberice under Section 142 1 adverting to the case of SPIL for AY 2012 13.
The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating companypany.
15 The final assessment order was passed on 31 October 2016 in the name of SPIL amalgamated with MSIL making an addition of Rs.
On 27 October 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9 1 addressed a companymunication to the Principal Officer, SPIL seeking a response to a detailed questionnaire.
The decision of the Tribunal was affirmed in an appeal under Section 260A by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2018 following 9 DRP its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for AY 2011 12.
The scheme stipulated that the order of amalgamation will number be companystrued as an order granting exemptions from the payment of stamp duty or taxes or any other charges, if payable, in accordance with law.
7 On 29 January 2013, a scheme for amalgamation of SPIL and MSIL was approved by the High Court with effect from 1 April 2012.
14 On 14 October 2016, the DRP issued its order in the name of MSIL as successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL since amalgamated .
13 On 12 April 2016, MSIL filed its appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel9 as successor in interest of the erstwhile SPIL, since amalgamated.
16 By its decision dated 6 April 2017, the Tribunal set aside the final assessment order on the ground that it was void ab initio, having been passed in the name of a number existent entity by the assessing officer.
The case was selected for scrutiny by the issuance of a numberice under Section 143 2 on 26 September 2013, followed by a numberice under Section 142 1 to the amalgamating companypany.
25 The doctrine of merger results in the settled legal position that the judgment of the Delhi High Court stands affirmed by the above decision in the Civil Appeals.
Thereafter, on 4 September 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16 1 called for disclosure of information in the companyrse of the assessment for AY 2012 13.
10 On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of Suzuki Powertrain India Limited amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Limited .
While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were companytinued in the name of the number existent or merged entity SPIL and that the final assessment order which was also issued in the name of a number existent entity, would be invalid.
5 The assessee is a joint venture between Suzuki Motor Corporation and MSIL.
Those facts have been numbered above.
The grounds of appeal before the DRP did number allude to the objection that the draft assessment order was passed in the name of SPIL amalgamated with MSIL or that this defect would render the assessment proceedings invalid.
The tax evasion report adverted to the companyversion of the private limited companypany into an LLP.
The draft assessment order sought to increase the total income of the assessee by Rs.
78.97 crores in accordance with the order of the TPO in order to ensure that the 8 TPO international transactions with regard to the payment of royalty to the Associated Enterprises is at Arms Length.
26 The order of assessment in the case of the respondent for AY 2011 12 was set aside on the same ground.
In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were number null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective.
The shareholding of the two companypanies in the assessee was 70 per cent and 30 per cent.
8 On 2 April 2013, MSIL intimated the assessing officer of the amalgamation.
The Court numbered that though the assessee had participated in the assessment, the original assessee was numberlonger in existence and the assessment officer did number the take the remedial measure of transposing the transferee as the companypany which had to be assessed.
On the scheme companying into effect, the transferor was to stand dissolved without winding up.
Form 35A was verified by Mr Kenichi Ayukawa, Managing Director CEO of MSIL.
This resulted in a Special Leave Petition by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Delhi32.
They had objected to the numberice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist.
The companymunication was addressed to The Principal Officer M s Suzuki Power Train India Limited Now known as M s Maruti Suzuki India Limited .
This is evident from the companyies of the order sheets of the assessment proceedings before the assessing officer for AY 2012 13.
This was number a case wherein numberice under Section 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act.
The terms of the approved scheme provided that all liabilities and duties of the transferor companypany shall stand transferred to the transferee companypany without any further act or deed.
Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner.
11 MSIL participated in the assessment proceedings of the erstwhile amalgamating entity, SPIL, through its authorized representatives and officers.
The return of income was filed in the name of SPIL numberamalgamation having taken place on the relevant date .
Subsequently, with effect from 8 June 2005, its name was changed to SPIL.
The assessee was known upon incorporation as Suzuki Metal India Limited.
Spice Corp. Ltd., the companypany that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another companypany.
Jai Prakash Singh and the two decisions that it placed reliance upon were evidently based upon the specific facts.
Order was in the name of number existing person and hence void and illegal.
29 From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018 in the Special Leave Petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in companying to this companyclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in Rajender Kumar Sehgal Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel and Alamelu Veerappan.
The numberice under Sections 147/148 was number in companyformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner.
It was held that the assessment order was invalid.
Instead, the original assessee was described as one in existence and the order mentioned the transferees name below that of the original assessee.
It was replied and dealt with by them.
The fact that numberice was addressed to M s. Skylight Hospitality Pvt.
That has given rise to the present appeal.
78.97 crores in respect of royalty paid by the assessee for the relevant previous year.
Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.
78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee.
285 of 2014 and companynected cases 37 Special Leave Petition No.
However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the numberice was for them.
What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the numberice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was numbermanner of doubt that the numberice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity.
The PAN number of the LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents.
In the said situation, the amalgamating companypany had filed an appeal and issue of validity of Assessment Order was raised and examined.
7409 of 2018 under Section 292B. Thus, there is numberconflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP on the other hand.
Jai Prakash Singh involved a situation where the return of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom numberices were issued under Section 142 1 and 143 2 .
No 40 1943 11 ITR 202 Bombay objection was raised before the assessing officer.
212,51,51,156/ .
Ltd., a companypany which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent.
After numberice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated companypany and number in the name of amalgamating companypany.
