Commissioner Of Incometax, (Central Ii v. Respondentmayank Traders(P) Ltd.through

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 6. + ITA 466/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, (CENTRAL II) Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior StandingCounsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, JuniorStanding Counsel. . 7. ± versus RespondentMAYANK TRADERS(P) LTD.Through WITH ITA 467/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL 11), AppellantThrough: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior StandingCounsel with Ms Lakshrni Gurung, JuniorStanding Counsel. S versus MAYANK TRADERS(P) LTD. Respondent ThroughWITH 8. +ITA 470/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX, (CENTRAL TI) Appellant Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing Signature Not Verified ITA Nos.466, 467, 470, 471 & 477 o[2015 S S Counsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, JuniorStanding Counsel. versus MAYANK TRADERS(P) LTD. Respondent ThroughWITH 9. + ITA 471/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Appellant (CENTRAL II) Through: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior StandingCounsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, JuniorStanding Counsel. versus MAYANK TRADERS(P) LTD. Respondent ThroughAND +ITA 477/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL II), AppellantThrough: Ms Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior StandingCounsel with Ms Lakshmi Gurung, JuniorStanding Counsel. versus MAYANK TRADERS(P) LTD. Respondent Through CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRUORDER%20.08.2015 % 1.[These appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order]dated 28th November, 2014 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal('ITAT') in ITA Nos.5307, [5308/Del/2013 and 2356 & ][23571DelI20l4 ][for]the Assessment Years ('AY') 2005-06, 2006-07, 2003-04 and 2004-05. 2.[The Respondent in the relevant AYs was engaged in the business of]fabrication of cloth and textiles. A search was conducted in the premises ofthe Respondent on [20th ][October, 2008 and notices under Section 1 53A (1) of]the Act were issued to it on 29th March, 2010 requiring into to file its returnfor the AYs previous to the relevant AY in which the search was conducted.One of the grounds urged by the Respondent was that following its mergerwith Optus Promoters Pvt. Ltd. ('OPPL') from [1st ][April 2008 in terms of the]order of this Court dated [18th1 ][October 2010, the initiation of proceedings]against it under Section 1 53A by the aforementioned notice was bad in law. 3.[After the Assessing Officer (AO) rejected the above plea. the Respondent]appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)]. The CIT(A) also rejected the plea noting that the return of income filed on 18th November 2010, nearly eight months after the notice dated 29th March20l0under Section 153A (1), was in the name of Mayank Traders P Ltd andthat no reference was made to its amalgamation with OPPL. The CIT (A)further noted that the Respondent was corresponding with the AO by letterdated 18th November, 2010 in its own name without referring to itsamalgamation with OPPL and it was only in the month of December, 2010when the limitation period for assessment was nearing an end that the AOwas informed about the amalgamation with OPPL. 17th4.[The ITAT in the impugned order has referred to the decision dated ]September, 2009 of this Court in ITA No.273/2009 [(CIT v. ][Vived]Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd.) [which held that an assessment could not be]validly framed on a non-existent entity. 5.[Recently this Court has in an order dated 19th August 2015 in ITA No.]held that582 of 2015 (PCJT v. [Images Credit and Portfolio Pvi. Ltd ) ]proceedings under Section 1 53C could not be initiated against an entity thathad ceased to exist at the relevant time. Similarly, by order dated 3 August2015 in ITA No. 475/2000 (Spice [Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT) ][it was held by]this Court that the defect of passing an assessment order in respect of an 17th4.[The ITAT in the impugned order has referred to the decision dated ]September, 2009 of this Court in ITA No.273/2009 [(CIT v. ][Vived]Marketing Services Pvt. Ltd.) [which held that an assessment could not be]validly framed on a non-existent entity. 5.[Recently this Court has in an order dated 19th August 2015 in ITA No.]held that582 of 2015 (PCJT v. [Images Credit and Portfolio Pvi. Ltd ) ]proceedings under Section 1 53C could not be initiated against an entity thathad ceased to exist at the relevant time. Similarly, by order dated 3 August2015 in ITA No. 475/2000 (Spice [Enfotainment Ltd. v. CIT) ][it was held by]this Court that the defect of passing an assessment order in respect of an entity that had ceased to exist on the date of such order, could not be treatedas a mere procedural defect. The mere fact that the Respondentcommunicated to the AO, prior to the Assessment order and subsequentnotice, in its name without disclosing the fact of amalgamation with OPPL,will not cure the fundamental defect of the assessment having been framedagainst an entity that had ceased to exist in the eye of law. 6. Consequently, the impugned common order of the ITAT following thedoesdecision of this Court in [Vived Marketing Services Pr!. Ltd. (supra) ]not call for interference. No substantial question of law arises. The appealsare dismissed. S.MURALIDHAR, J AUGUST 20, 2015MK VIBHU BAKHRU, J