|CORAM:||Manish Borad (AM), Rajpal Yadav (JM)|
|CATCH WORDS:||estoppel, Order on non-existing person|
|DATE:||March 28, 2016 (Date of pronouncement)|
|DATE:||March 28, 2016 (Date of publication)|
|FILE:||Click here to download the file in pdf format|
|An order of revision passed on a non-existing entity, even though the power of attorney and the adjournment and the reply to show cause notice was signed by the erstwhile company, is invalid. The Tribunal held that the case of estoppel relied on by the department cannot be applied to instant case as assessee did not behave in a notorious way to mislead the department. Taking cognizance of the intimation filed by the assessee to the jurisdictional AO that the company is not is existence, during the assessment proceedings, of the intervening assessment years, and there being no provision in law to intimate the CIT regarding the facts of merger, the ITAT held the order to be invalid.|
11. On due consideration of all these arguments, we are of the view that in the Income Tax Act, there is no provision to communicate this fact to the Commissioner. The assessee has already informed the AO. We have extracted the copy of the letter written by the assessee. We have also made reference of the assessment order vide which the AO has taken cognizance of this fact while he issued notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act. In the order of the ITAT, Kolkata Bench itself has observed that legally when a company amalgamates with another, it loses its identity and no proceedings can be taken in its earlier name. The Bench had taken a different view on account of notorious facts available in that case. No such circumstances are before us. Apart from above, we are of the view that even if the assessee gave consent for taking up the proceedings under section 263 against it, that would not infuse jurisdiction in the ld.Commissioner. In other words, this adjournment application, reply to show cause notice would not infuse jurisdiction to ld.Commissioner. Jurisdiction should be by virtue of operation of the Act and not by the consent of an assessee. A perusal of section 263 would indicate that before taking any action under section 263, the ld.Commissioner has to pursue record and record would include the communication made by the assessee to the AO on 23.7.2013 intimating about the fact of amalgamation. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue in dispute is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Khurana Engineering Ltd. (supra). Since we have arrived at a conclusion that initiation of proceedings against HEPL is void ab inito, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to adjudicate on other issues on merit. No proceedings under section 263 can be taken up against HEPL after its amalgamation with Milestone Tradelinks Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, we allow the appeal of the assessee and quash the order passed by the ld.Commissioner under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.