*Vedanta Limited Vs DCIT CompanyCircle 6(2), Chennai *.
*WP No 25529 of 2015*
*Forum Madras High Court*
*Date -15th July2021*

*Sub-Whether when the notice u/s 148 is issued in the name of a company which is already merged with another company, Can the apex court decision in the case of Maruti Suzuki be applied or because of frequent changes in the name of the company bonafide errors on part of AO are to be ignored since PAN no remained the same. *

The Madras High court in this case was considering challenge to notice u/s 148 of the Act for the AY 2008-09 which was issued in the name of Sesa Sterlite Industries(India) Limited which had already been merged and the name also has been changed to Vedanta Limited the present petitioner. The challenge was also made to the assessment order which was passed.

The petitioner relied on the decision of the apex court in the case of *PCIT Vs Maruti Suzuki India Limited(2019) 416 ITR 613(SC).*

However, the department raised an initial objection that final order having been passed, the petitioner should have approached the appellate authorities and further argued that the Company had frequently changed its name as well as registered office from Tuticorin, Chennai ,Goa , Delhi and the department was finding it difficult to serve notice on some occasions as the name of the company was also changed on several occasions.

The Court finally dismissed the writ petition by observing that the company had frequently changed its name and registered office and the names Sterlite Industries (India) limited, Sesa Sterlite Limited, Sesa Goa Limited were too similar and the department had erroneously referred to Sterlite Industries(India)Limited as Sesa Sterlite Industries (India)limited. The court was also guided by the fact that the PAN No remained the same throughout and this was correctly stated in the notice and order and if the PAN is correctly mentioned, then it indicates the person against whom such proceedings are initiated and thus, such errors are to be neglected and is to be corrected for the purpose of continuing the proceedings. Finally the court held that the decision of theApex Court in Maruti Suzuki cannot be applied in a blanket manner and the same has to be weighed on the facts of the each case.

This judgement is a landmark judgement which distinguishes the decision of the apex court in the case of Maruti Suzuki and finer points regarding the continuation of PAN , frequent change in name and address etc in the context of Section 170 and 292 B of the Income-tax Act,1961. It is thus important that the decision of Maruti Suzuki is thread bare analysed in each case because taking cognisance of the same.

Ramesh Patodia
30-07-2021