Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central-2 v. Mis Mievron Projects Pvt. Ltd

$-.. * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 19,20,22-24 ITA 745/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2) Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel &Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocate. versus MIS MIEVRON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. with Respondent + jY4 -< 746/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2), Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel &Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S MEVRON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Through Respondent With + ITA 748/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2) TAX (CENTRAL-2) Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedBy:AMULYA ITA Nos. 745,746,748,749 & 750 of 2015 Standing counsel &Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S MEVRON PROJECTS PVT. LTD Respondent With ITA 749/2015 + ITA 749/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF iNCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2), Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel &Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S MEVRON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. Respondent And + ITA 750/2015 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL-2) .... Appellant Through: Ms. Suruchi Aggarwal, Senior Standing counsel with Ms. Lakshmi Gurung, Junior Standing counsel &Ms. Radhika Gupta, Advocate. versus M/S MEVRON PROJECTS PVT. LTD. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.M1JRALIDHAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKIIRU ORDER % 29.09.2015 Respondent CM APPL No.21516 of 2015(exemption) in ITA 748 of 2015 CM APPL No.21517 of 2015(exemption) in ITA 749 of 2015 CM APPL No.21518 of 2015(exemption) in ITA 750 of 2015 Allowed, subject to all just exceptions. ITA Nos. 745 of 2015, 746 of 2015, 748 of 2015. 749 of 2015 & 750 of 2015 These five appeals by the Revenue are directed against the common order dated [201h ] February 2015 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ('ITAT') for the Assessment Years ('AYs') 2003-04, 2005-05, 2006-07, 2007- A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Act was carried out in the case of B.K. Dhingra, Poonam Dhingra and Madhusudan Buildcon Pvt. Ltd on [20th ] October 2008. Certain documents were purportedly recovered from the residential premises of B.K.Dhingra which were said to belong to the Respondent Assessee. A notice was issued under Section 153C of the Act to the Assessee first on [81h ] July 2010. In response thereto the Assessee filed a return on 1 [8th ] September 2010 for AY 2003-04 declaring its income. The St Assessing Officer ('AO') by order dated December 2010 assessed the income as Rs.32,25,180. In the appeal filed before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT (A)], the Assessee pointed out that following its amalgamation with Windchimes Construction Pvt. Ltd ('WCPL') with effect from [1St ] April 2008 as per the order of the High Court dated [16th ] August 2010, the assessment was required to be made on WCPL. Inter alia, reliance was placed on the decisions of this Court in Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. CIT (ITA No. 475 of 2000) and Pampasar Distillery Ltd. v. ACIT (2007) 15 SOT 331 (ITAT1Kolkj). The CIT (A), however, noted that in response to the notice under Section 1 53C the Director of the Assessee had used the letterhead of the Assessee in writing a letter dated 01h November 2010, in which there was no mention of amalgamation. The CIT (A) also noted that a return of income was filed in the name of the Assessee itself without disclosing the above fact and rejected the ground of the Assessee. The ITAT, however, accepted the contention of the Assessee that a notice issued under Section 1 53C of the Act to an entity which had already become non-existent on account of its merger with other company could not be a valid basis for framing an assessment against the Assessee. This Court has, by a detailed order dated 9th August 2015 in Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Images Credit & Portfolio PvL Ltd (ITA Nos. 582, 584 and 431 of 2015), negatived the challenge by the Revenue to a similar order of the ITAT, which affirmed the order of the CIT (A) and held that continuing proceedings under Section 1 53C of the Act against an entity Nos. 582, 584 and 431 of 2015), negatived the challenge by the Revenue to a similar order of the ITAT, which affirmed the order of the CIT (A) and held that continuing proceedings under Section 1 53C of the Act against an entity which was not in existence in law deserved to be quashed. The only distinguishing feature in the present case is that while the entity to which the notice was issued under Section 153 C of the Act was in existence on the date of the notice i.e. [61h ] July 2010, it ceased to be in existence on the date of framing the assessment pursuant to such notice. In the present case the defect of the AO in framing an assessment on 31 st December 2010 against the Assessee by which time it was not in existence on account of its merger with WPCL (effective April 2008) was not a curable defect. Consequently, the impugned order of the ITAT setting aside the order of the CIT (A) does not suffer from any legal infirmity. No substantial question of law arises for consideration. The appeal is dismissed S.MURALIDHAR, J SEPTEMBER 29, 2015/mg q~~ W Z. VIBHU BAKHRU, J