The Commissioner Of Income Tax Delhicentral-11 v. Indu Surveyors & Loss Assessorspvt. Ltd

� � � $-* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 7. + ITA 365/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHICENTRAL-11 Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior StandingCounsel. . versus INDU SURVEYORS & LOSS ASSESSORSPVT. LTD Through: Mr Vikas Jam, Advocate. Respondent . 8.+ WITH ITA 366/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX DELHI CENTRAL —II Appellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior StandingCounsel. versus INDU SURVEYORS & LOSS ASSESSORSPVT. LTD Through: Mr Vikas Jam, Advocate. Respondent 9. + WITH ITA 367/2013 Signature Not Verified ITA Nos. 365, 366, 367, 368, 371 & 372 of2013 � � . � V/ versus INDU SURVEYORS & LOSS ASSESSORSPVT. LTD.Respondent Through: Mr Vikas Jam, Advocate. . AND 12. +ITA 372/2013 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAXDELHI CENTRAL —IIAppellant Through: Mr Dileep Shivpuri, Senior StandingCounsel with Mr Sanjay Kumar, Junior StandingCounsel. versus INDU SURVEYORS & LOSS ASSESSORSPVT. LTD.Respondent Through: Mr Vikas Jam, Advocate. CORAM:HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.MURALIDHAR[HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIBHU BAKHRU]S ORDER15.10.2015 % CM No.23641/2015 in ITA 366/2013CM No.23645/2015 in ITA 367/2013CM No.23647/2015 in ITA 368/2013CM No.23643/2015 in ITA 372/2013 1. For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 50 days in re-filingthe appeals is condoned. • 2. The applications are disposed of ITA No.365/2013 ITA No.366/2013 & CM No.23640/2015ITA No.367/2013 & CM No.23644/2015ITA 368/2013 & CM No.23646/2015 ITA No.371/2013 &ITA No.372/2013 & CM No.23642/2015 3.[The question framed in the present appeals by the order dated ][30th ][July,]2013 reads thus: "Whether the order passed by the ITAT is perverse in view ofthe reasons and facts recorded in the assessment order?" 4. However, the above question was framed ex parte [and along with a whole]batch of other appeals. Having considered the Assessee's applicationsseeking to urge cross-objections and having heard the counsel for the parties,the Court notes that the first question urged by the Revenue itself in thememorandum of appeals requires to be framed for consideration.Accordingly, the following question is additionally framed for considerationin these appeals: "Whether the ITAT erred in law and on facts of the case in holdingthat the assessment order passed in the case of Assessee is nullity asthe Assessee company stood dissolved on amalgamation with MIs B.S. Infratech Pvt. Ltd.?" 5. The Court takes up for consideration the above question first. It is not indispute that the Assessee which was initially incorporated on [1st ]January, 1999 merged with MIs B. S. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. with effect from [1st ][April,]2008 by the order of this Court. 1h October, 2008 in the cases 6. In the present case, a search took place on 20 October, 2008 in the casesof Mr B. K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and MIs Madhusudan BuildconPvt. Ltd. On the basis that in the course of search certain documentsbelonging to the Assessee company were found, notice was issued to the. Assessee under Section 153C (1) on 01 September, 2010. Therefore, not[1 ]only on the date on which notice was issued but even on the date of thesearch, the Assessee had ceased to exist in the eyes of law. 5. The Court takes up for consideration the above question first. It is not indispute that the Assessee which was initially incorporated on [1st ]January, 1999 merged with MIs B. S. Infratech Pvt. Ltd. with effect from [1st ][April,]2008 by the order of this Court. 1h October, 2008 in the cases 6. In the present case, a search took place on 20 October, 2008 in the casesof Mr B. K. Dhingra, Smt. Poonam Dhingra and MIs Madhusudan BuildconPvt. Ltd. On the basis that in the course of search certain documentsbelonging to the Assessee company were found, notice was issued to the. Assessee under Section 153C (1) on 01 September, 2010. Therefore, not[1 ]only on the date on which notice was issued but even on the date of thesearch, the Assessee had ceased to exist in the eyes of law. 7. In identical circumstances, in cases arising out of the same search, thisCourt has by its order dated [19th ][August, 2015 in the Revenue's appeals ITA]Nos.582, 584, 431, 533, 432 & 433 of 2015 (Pr. [Commissioner ][of ][Income]Tax (Central-II) v. Images Credit And Portfolio Pvt. Ltd.) and order dated29t11 September, 2015 in ITA Nos.745, 746,748, 749 and 750/2015 (Pr.Commissioner of Income Tax (Central-2) v. M/s [Mevron Projects Pvt.]Ltd.) invalidated the assessment proceedings against the Assessee in thosecases which, on account of having merged with another entity with effectfrom a date anterior to the search, also no longer existed on the date ofsearch, on the date of the issue of notice and consequent assessment orderpassed under Section 153 C of the Act. 8. In that view of the matter, the question framed in para 4 above isanswered in the negative i.e. favour of the Assessee and against theRevenue. 9. [In view of the above conclusion, the Court does not consider it necessary]to answer other question framed. 10.[The appeals are dismissed and the pending cross objections are disposed]of in the above terms. S S. MURALIDHAR, J OCTOBER 15, 2015MK 0% VIBHU BAKHRU, J