Taxmann Daily – Editorial Team
Dear Reader,
Today’s newsletter analytically summarizes the top stories reported at taxmann.com.
Assessee-Mahagun Realtors Private Limited (Amalgamating Co.) was engaged in the development of real estate. Assessee amalgamated with Mahagun India Private Limited by virtue of an order of the High Court.
After such amalgamation, survey proceedings were conducted in respect of the assessee. During proceedings, some discrepancies in its books of account were noticed. The Assessing Officer (AO) passed the assessment order making several additions under various heads. The assessment order showed the assessee as "Mahagun Realtors Private Ltd, represented by Mahagun India Private Ltd".
Said order was challenged before lower authorities and courts held that the assessment order passed in the name of a non-existing entity would be without jurisdiction. The matter reached the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court held that amalgamation is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed. However, the business and the adventure live on within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee company.
Therefore, it is essential to look beyond the mere concept of the destruction of the corporate entity, which ends or terminates any assessment proceedings. There are analogies in civil law and procedure whereupon amalgamation, the cause of action, or the complaint does not per se cease – depending of course, upon the structure and objective of enactment.
Corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case.
In the instant case, there was no intimation by the assessee regarding the amalgamation of the company. The return of amalgamating Co. was also filed pursuant to notice by the AO. Though that entity ceased to exist in law, appeals were filed on its behalf before the CIT(A), and a cross-appeal was filed before ITAT.
Thus, the assessee's conduct, commencing from the date the search took place and before all forums, reflects that it consistently held itself out as the assessee. Accordingly, the order of the High Court was to be set aside, and the matter is restored to file of ITAT, which shall proceed further.
领英推荐
The Finance Act, 2021 has inserted Section 245MA to provide for the constitution of ‘Dispute Resolution Committee’ (DRC). DRC will provide an opportunity to resolve a dispute arising from any variation in the ‘Specified Order’ and fulfil the ‘Specified Conditions’.
The CBDT has notified rules for the constitution of DRC and also notified the e-Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2022 to dispose of applications facelessly.
The Central Government shall constitute a DRC for every region of the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-tax for dispute resolution. An application to the DRC shall be made in Form No. 34BC by the person, who opts for dispute resolution under section 245MA. Such application shall be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 1,000.
The DRC, subject to prescribed conditions, shall grant a waiver of penalty imposable or immunity from prosecution or both, in respect of the order which is the subject matter of resolution, if it is satisfied that such person has:
(i) Paid the tax due on the returned income in full if available; and
(ii) Co-operated with the Dispute Resolution Committee in the proceedings before it.
That’s it from us for today! Stay Tuned for more updates from?Taxmann.com
Taxmann Academy presents the Tax and Accounts Professional (TAP) Course!
Enrol in the Foundation Level of TAP course?and get practical training in book-keeping, income-tax returns, GST returns, TDS returns, Payroll, MS-Office, Labour Laws, and much more.
Join the Taxmann Academy Now!?https://taxmann.social/TbY0
Don’t feel Trapped; Enrol in TAP!?
Batch Begins April 2022