PCIT passed an order under section 263 directing AO to reassess afresh the issues of escapement of income under section 40(a)(i) and under section 14A, which was challenged by the assessee on the ground that since it had merged with another company with effect from October 1, 2009, having a different PAN, the order issued in its name was unsustainable. On appeal, the Tribunal held that since the cause title of the order clearly mentioned the assessee’s name along with the fact of its merger, the factum of amalgamation had been duly taken into account by PCIT, and merely because the order was issued in the name of the erstwhile company did not render it without jurisdiction or a nullity, given that the corporate venture and its rights and liabilities continue within the transferee entity even though the transferor company’s corporate identity ceases to exist; it further held that since no material was furnished before AO or the Tribunal to show that the issues relating to non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(i) or disallowance under section 14A read with rule 8D had actually been examined during assessment proceedings, AO had failed to discharge the duty cast upon him to examine such issues, and the order of the PCIT setting aside the assessment as erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue was proper and called for no interference. (AY. 2008-09)