Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-4 v. Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpactinfrastructure (Kolkata) Pvt. Ltd

$~2 *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI +ITA 172/2019, CM APPL. 40541/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 ..... Appellant Through:Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standingcounsel for the Revenue. versus GENPACT INDIA (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS GENPACTINFRASTRUCTURE (KOLKATA) PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through:Mr. Vishal Kalra and Mr. S. S.Tomar, Advs. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHIHON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULAO R D E R%17.09.2019 CM APPL. 40542/2019 (application under Section 151 CPC foramendment of cause title) 1. By way of this application, the respondent seeks correction of cause titlein the present appeal. It is pointed out that the name of the respondent is not“Genpact India” as it is mentioned but the same is “Genpact India Pvt. Ltd”.2. The application is allowed since it is not opposed. The name of therespondent is corrected to “Genpact India Pvt. Ltd”. 3. The amended memo of parties filed along with the application is taken onrecord. ITA 172/2019 4. The revenue has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.199/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. The order passed by theAssessing Officer in the name of the predecessor of the respondent assessee,despite having notice of the said amalgamation was incompetent. 5. It is the admitted position that the Assessing Officer had notice of the saidamalgamation vide a notice dated 24.01.2011 issued to the AssessingOfficer. Despite that the Assessing Officer passed a draft order underSection 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of the Act on 28.02.2014 in thename of the predecessor of the amalgamated company. The Supreme Courtin a recent decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. MarutiSuzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) has inter alia held as follows; “33. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessingofficer was informed of the amalgamating company havingceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme ofamalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only inits name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked wasfundamentally at odds with the legal principle that theamalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approvedscheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedingsby the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as anestoppel against law. This position now holds the field inview of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learnedjudges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in SpiceEnfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in SpiceEnfotainment has been followed in the case of therespondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition forAY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on thedecision in Spice Enfotainment.”officer was informed of the amalgamating company havingceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme ofamalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only inits name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked wasfundamentally at odds with the legal principle that theamalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approvedscheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedingsby the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as anestoppel against law. This position now holds the field inview of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learnedjudges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in SpiceEnfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in SpiceEnfotainment has been followed in the case of therespondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition forAY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on thedecision in Spice Enfotainment.” 6. In view of the aforesaid, there is no merit in the present appeal and noquestion arises for consideration. Hence, petition stands dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2019Pallavi SANJEEV NARULA, J