Allowing the appeal, that according to the records, the assessee had pursuant to the orders issued under section\u00a0391\u00a0to section\u00a0394\u00a0of the\u00a0Companies Act, 1956\u00a0by the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Bombay High Court was amalgamated with S with the appointed date as October 1, 2011. Admittedly, the assessee had informed the Assessing Officer by letters dated May 4, 2013 and May 14, 2013 that it was amalgamated with S with effect from October 1, 2011. The assessee had also by its letter dated May 14, 2013 addressed to the Commissioner, Gurgaon, brought the fact of its amalgamation with S to his notice, along with a request that its case might be transferred to the Commissioner, Mumbai, who exercised the requisite jurisdiction over the case of the amalgamated company, S. Despite having been informed about the fact of amalgamation, with effect from October 1, 2011, the Assessing Officer had issued the notice under section\u00a0143(2), dated August 7, 2013 in the name of the amalgamating company. No notice under section\u00a0143(2)\u00a0was ever issued by the Assessing Officer to the amalgamated company S. Neither the issuance of the notice under section\u00a0143(2)\u00a0to the amalgamating company, a non-existent entity, could be construed as a notice issued to the amalgamated company, nor be validated bringing it within the realm of a procedural irregularity within the meaning of section\u00a0292B\u00a0of the Act. The non-issuance of a notice under section\u00a0143(2)\u00a0to the amalgamated company, S would render the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer under section\u00a0143(3)\u00a0read with section\u00a0144C(13), dated January 30, 2017 invalid and void ab initio. Accordingly, the assessment framed by the Assessing Officer was thus quashed for want of jurisdiction. (AY. 2012-13)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
S. 143(3) : Assessment-Amalgamation of Companies-Additional ground-Legal issue-Non issue of notice-Assessment is held to be void ab initio. [S. 143(2), 254(1)]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-17932","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-income-tax-act"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p9S2Rw-4Fe","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17932","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17932"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17932\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":17933,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17932\/revisions\/17933"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17932"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17932"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/digest\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17932"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}