Final Assessment Order Passed in the Name of an Amalgamated,

Final Assessment Order Passed in the Name of an Amalgamated, Non-Existent Entity is Void

Issue

Whether DRP directions and a final assessment order passed under Section 143(3) read with Sections 144C(13) and 144B in the name of an erstwhile amalgamated company are valid, when the fact of amalgamation and subsequent name change had already been formally intimated to the tax authorities in writing.

Facts

For the Assessment Year 2022-23, an entity named Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated with Creatorbox Softwares Pvt. Ltd. pursuant to a scheme approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT).
Following the merger, Creatorbox Softwares Pvt. Ltd. legally changed its name to Brevo CRM Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
The assessee formally intimated the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO), and the Assessing Officer (AO) in writing regarding the amalgamation and the subsequent corporate name change.
Despite receiving this written intimation prior to issuing directions or framing the assessment, the DRP issued its directions and the AO subsequently passed the final assessment order under the name of the non-existent, erstwhile entity, Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd.

Decision

Held, yes: It is a well-settled principle of law that once a company amalgamates with another entity and loses its unique corporate identity, it ceases to exist in the eyes of the law.
Held, yes: Any regulatory or assessment order passed against a non-existing entity is completely without jurisdiction and is void ab initio (invalid from the outset).
Held, yes: The impugned DRP directions and the final assessment order were declared invalid and were entirely set aside in favour of the assessee.

Key Takeaways

Jurisdictional Defect: Passing an assessment order against a non-existent company is not a procedural irregularity that can be cured; it is a fundamental jurisdictional defect that nullifies the entire assessment procedure.
Effect of Intimation: When a taxpayer fulfills their duty by formally communicating corporate restructurings (like mergers, acquisitions, or name changes) to the field authorities, the department is legally bound to update its records and address all subsequent notices and orders to the surviving, active entity.
Legal Demise of a Corporate Entity: A statutory amalgamation results in the permanent legal dissolution of the amalgamating company, meaning it cannot be treated as an eligible assessee or a target for tax recovery post-merger.

IN THE ITAT DELHI BENCH ‘H’

Brevo CRM Solutions (P.) Ltd.

Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department, ITO

Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member
and S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member

IT (TP) Appeal No. 33 (Del) of 2025
Stay Application No. 625 (Del) of 2025
[Assessment year 2022-23]

MAY 29, 2026

Ms. Nikhila Bhalla, Ms. Archita Singhal and Ajit Jain, CAs for the Appellant. S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR for the Respondent.

ORDER

Vimal Kumar, Judicial Member.- The appeal filed by the assessee and Stay Application are against the final assessment order dated 25.11.2025 of the ld. Assessing Officer/ Assessment Unit u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment year (‘AY’) 2022-23.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/ assessee, BREVO CRM SOLUTIONS Pvt. Ltd. was formerly known as Creatorbox Softwares P. Ltd. and Successor entity of Silver Line IT solutions Pvt. Ltd. A Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. filed return of income for Assessment Year 2022-23 on 30.11.2022 declaring total income of Rs. 4,91,24,571/-. The case of Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for following reasons:

Large value of international transactions in services in comparison to revenue from sale of services shown in ITES and low profitability (T.P.Risk Parameter) and

Addition of assets during the year in the block of assets where rate of depreciation claimed is 40% or higher.

Notice under section 143(2) of the Act dated 02.06.2023 and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire dated 04.07.2023 were issued. The assessee failed to respond the notices.

2.1 On issue of large value of international transactions in services in comparison to revenue from sale of services shown in ITR and low profitability (T.P. Risk Parameter), the case was referred to Technical Unit for assistance/advice on determination of arm’s length price (ALP) of the transaction(s) as per Sec. 92CA of the Act on 12.07.2023. Ld. TPO vide order dated 02.01.2025 proposed and adjustment of Rs. 4,36,58,078/- in respect of software development services and interest on outstanding trade receivables. The draft assessment order u/s 144C(1) of the Act dated 20.01.2025 proposing an addition of Rs. 4,36,58,078/- was passed. The assessee filed objections before Dispute Resolution Penal, New Delhi on 18.02.2025 which were disposed of vide order dated 31.10.2025.

2.2 On completion of proceedings, ld. AO vide order dated 25.11.2025 made an adjustment of Rs. 4,11,07,866/- (i.e. Rs. 3,545/- i.r.o. international transactions relating interest on outstanding receivables & 4,11,04,320/-i.r.o. international transactions software development services).

3. Being aggrieved, the appellant/assessee preferred present appeal on following grounds:

“Ground relating to transfer pricing adjustment – INR 41,107,865

1. Adjustment relating to international transaction of provision of software development services INR 41,104,320

1.1. The Ld. AO along with the Ld. TPO (under the directions of Hon’ble DRP) erred on facts and in law in making an addition of INR 41,104,320 to the Appellant’s taxable income by incorrectly determining the arm’s length price for the provision of software development services.

1.2. Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in modifying the economic analysis carried out by the Appellant in the Transfer Pricing Documentation (TP Documentation’) and introducing new filters, without providing any cogent reasons.

1.3. Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in incorrectly computing the net cost-plus margin of the tested party. Among the other errors, Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in treating the expense incurred on donation as operating in nature.

1.4. Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in incorrectly computing the net cost-plus margin of comparable companies for arriving at the arm’s length price.

1.5. Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in arbitrarily rejecting Kireeti Soft Technologies Limited selected by the Appellant in the TP Documentation basis the provisions of Rule 108(2) of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 (‘Rules’).

1.6. Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in introducing new companies without appreciating that such companies are functionally dissimilar to the Appellant and thereby, violate the provisions of Rule 10B(2) of the Rules.

1.7. Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred in law in not allowing working capital adjustment under the provisions of Rule 10B(1) and Rule 10B(3) of the Rules.

2. Adjustment relating to international transactions pertaining to interest on outstanding receivables – INR 3,545

2.1. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in treating outstanding receivables from AE as a separate international transaction.

2.2. The Ld. AO/Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating the fact that the Appellant has realized the invoices within a weighted average credit period of 28 days which is well within the accepted credit policy of 60 days by the Ld. TPO/ Ld. AO, thereby, not warranting an addition.

2.3. The Ld. AO/ Ld. TPO erred on facts and in law in not appreciating that once a working capital adjustment is performed, it subsumes the impact of outstanding receivables made by the Appellant.

Other grounds

3. The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in levying excess interest under section 234B of the Act.

4. The Ld. AO erred on facts and in law in initiating penalty proceedings under Section 270A of the Act.

5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment proceedings are barred by limitation in view of Section 153 read with Section 144C of the Act.”

3.1 The appellant/assessee through application requested additional ground as under:

“Ground No. 6

6.1. “On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order dated November 25, 2025 passed by the Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (‘Ld. AO’) and the directions pronounced by the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘DRP’) dated October 31, 2025 in the name of Silver Line IT Solutions Private Limited (‘Silver Line’) is invalid and bad in law.

6.2. ” On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. AO erred in passing the assessment order dated November 25, 2025 in the name of Silver Line which was not in existence on the date of passing the assessment order as it stood merged with Brevo CRM Solutions Private Limited (‘Brevo CRM’) (formerly known as Creatorbox Softwares Private Limited (‘Creatorbox’)) effective from April 01, 2024 as approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’). Thus, the assessment order in the name of non-existent company (being the merged company) is invalid and bad in law.”

4. Ld. Authorized Representative for appellant/assessee submitted that additional ground raises a legal plea and does not require investigation into the facts but arises out of facts already available on record. The assessee inadvertently omitted to raise the additional ground earlier. The additional ground of appeal is necessary for the substantial justice. Silver Line IT Solutions Private Limited got merged with Creatorbox Softwares Private Limited with effect from April 01, 2024 pursuant to scheme of merger approved by the NCLT vide order dated December 23, 2024. A copy of the said order is Annexure 1. This fact was duly intimated to the Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP’), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer, 3(1)(2), Delhi (‘Ld. TPO’) as well as to the Learned Assessing Officer, Circle 23(3), Delhi, vide letters dated February 18, 2025. The copy of these letters are attached as Annexure 2.

4.1 Subsequent to the aforesaid merger, the name of Creatorbox Softwares Private Limited was changed to Brevo CRM Solutions Private Limited with effect from April 16, 2025. A copy of the certificate of incorporation is Annexure 3. This fact was also duly intimated to Hon’ble Dispute Resolution Panel (‘Hon’ble DRP’), Learned Transfer Pricing Officer, 3(1)(2), Delhi (‘Ld. TPO’) as well as to the Learned Assessing Officer, Circle 23(3), Delhi vide letters dated June 16, 2025. The copy of these letters are attached as Annexure 4.

4.2 Despite the timely intimations made regarding merger and subsequent name change, Hon’ble DRP issued the directions dated October 31, 2025 and Ld. AO passed the final assessment order dated November 25, 2025 in the name of Silver Line, i.e., the erstwhile entity.

4.3 . Reliance was placed on r. CIT, New Delhi v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. 15 (SC)/(Civil Appeal No. 5409 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 4298 of 2019)).

5. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the Departmental Authorities have fairly passed the impugned order.

6. From examination of record in the light of aforesaid rival contention, it is crystal clear that the appellant/assessee has raised additional ground of appeal which was inadvertently omitted earlier. The additional ground of appeal raises legal issue which goes to root of the matter. As per ratio of judgment in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (SC)/[1998] 229 ITR 383 (SC) and the above factual position the additional ground of appeal is admitted.

6.1 The final assessment order dated 25.11.2025 by Ld. AO and ld. DRP directions dated 31.10.2025 are in name of Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. with PAN No. AALCS4064L. Hon’ble NCLT vide order dated 25.11.2024 had ordered merger of Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. with Creatorbox Softwares P. Ltd. with effect from 01.04.2024 copy of order is Annexure 1 and letter of intimation to DRP and TPO dated 18.02.2025 is Annexure 2. The Creatorbox Softwares P. Ltd. was changed to Brevo CRM Solutions Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 16.04.2025, copy of certificate of incorporation is Annexure 3 and intimation to DRP and Ld. TPO as well as Ld. AO is 16.06.2025 is Annexure 4.

6.2 In view of above material facts it is apparent on record that despite intimation regarding merger and subsequent name change DRP issued direction dated 31.10.2025 and ld. AO passed final assessment order dated 25.1 1.2025 in name of Silver Line IT Solutions Pvt. Ltd. which is a non-existing entity.

6.3 As per ratio of judgment in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. (supra) of the Hon’ble Apex Court, it is well settled that where assessee company is amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence pursuant to approval of scheme of merger, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non-existing entity will be considered without jurisdiction and was to be set aside.

6.4 In view of material glaring fact and well settled principle of law, the passing of directions dated 31.10.2025 by Hon’ble DRP and final assessment order dated 25.1 1.2025 by Ld. AO in name of Silver Line IT Solutions Private Limited, a non-existing entity being invalid are set aside. Additional Ground of Appeal No. 6 (6.1 and 6.2) are allowed.

7. For decision of additional Ground of Appeal No. 6 and Grounds of Appeal Nos.1 to 5 have been rendered academic in nature and are left open.

8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and application for Stay is dismissed as infructuous.