Of Income Tax -4 v. Genpact India [Formerly

$~43 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 979/2018 THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX -4 ..... Appellant Through: Mr. Ruchir Bhatia, Sr. Standing Counsel (Income Tax) and Mr. Sanampreet Singh, Advocates versus GENPACT INDIA [FORMERLY KNOWN AS GENPACT INFRASTRUCTURE (BHOPAL) PVT. LTD.] ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra & Mr. S.S.Tomar, Advocates CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA O R D E R% 26.10.2018 1. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the impugned order dated 9[th] February 2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench I-1, New Delhi in ITA No. 2025/Del/2014 for the Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. The question urged for consideration reads thus: “Whether a typographical mistake in mentioning the name of amalgamating company in the assessment order in a case where the Assessing Officer had validly issued notice under Section 143(2) of the Act to acquire jurisdiction for scrutiny assessment, DRP held proceeding under Section 144C on the name of amalgamating company and the Assessing. Officer had assessment jurisdiction over amalgamating company could legally vitiate assessment proceedings and provisions of Section 292B could not be applicable?” 3. The above issue stands answered against the Revenue by a number of judgments as noted in the impugned order of the ITAT. These include Spice Entertainment Limited v. CST (decision dated 3[rd] August 2011 of this Court in ITA Nos. 475 and 476/2011) [upheld by the Supreme Court by its order dated 2[nd] November 2017 in Civil Appeal 285/2014 etc.] and the decisions of this Court in Principal CIT v.Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 681 (Del) and CIT v. Micra India (P) Ltd. (2015) 231 Taxman 809. 4. Consequently, no substantial question of law arises. The appeal is dismissed. S. MURALIDHAR, J. OCTOBER 26, 2018 mw SANJEEV NARULA, J.