Summary
An assessment initiated and completed against an amalgamating company after it had ceased to exist was a substantive jurisdictional illegality on the facts, not a curable naming error. The assessing officer had been informed of the amalgamation before issuing the jurisdictional notice. Participation by the successor and references to its name did not cure the defect. The assessment’s annulment was upheld, consistently with the earlier year’s ruling and Spice Enfotainment.
Issues
- Whether assessment against the dissolved amalgamating entity was curable as a procedural naming defect.
- Whether the successor’s participation or the Skylight Hospitality ruling saved the assessment.
Provisions considered
- Section 292B, Income-tax Act, 1961Did not cure the substantive illegality of assuming jurisdiction and assessing a non-existent entity in the circumstances established. (¶¶ 27–31, 33)
Held
- The approved amalgamation dissolved the transferor without winding up. Although tax liabilities passed to the successor, proceedings could not be initiated against the extinguished entity as if it remained a person; prior notice of the amalgamation to the assessing officer was material. (¶¶ 7–8, 19, 33)
- The jurisdictional notice was issued to the non-existent company and the assessment remained in its name. The successor’s participation could not create an estoppel against law or convert this substantive defect into a procedural irregularity. (¶¶ 19–25, 31, 33)
- Skylight Hospitality turned on affirmative material showing a notice unmistakably intended for the successor and a clerical misdescription. Its peculiar facts created no conflict with Spice Enfotainment and did not govern this assessment. (¶ 27–31)
- Consistency with the respondent’s immediately preceding assessment year reinforced the result. The Court declined to decide the separate eligible-assessee and limitation arguments because its jurisdictional conclusion disposed of the appeal. (¶¶ 26, 31, 34)
Result
Revenue’s appeal dismissed without costs. Annulment of the AY 2012–13 assessment sustained; separate limitation and eligible-assessee questions left undecided.