Reassessment Notice Issued to Amalgamated Company Quashed

“28. The submission, however, which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : [2018] 90 Delhi)] which was affirmed on 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] by a two-Judge Bench of this Court consisting of Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K. Sikri and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan. In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6-4-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] of this Court : (Skylight Hospitality case[Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147], SCC p. 147, para 1)

“1. In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act. The special leave petition is dismissed.

Pending applications stand disposed of.”

Now, it is evident from the above extract that it was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court indicated its agreement that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error, capable of being corrected under Section 292-B. The “peculiar facts” of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the decision of the Delhi High Court [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : [2018] 90 (Delhi)]. Skylight Hospitality, an LLP, had taken over on 13-5-2016 and acquired the rights and liabilities of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 (the LLP Act, 2008). It instituted writ proceedings for challenging a notice under Sections 147/148 of the 1961 Act dated 30-3-2017 for AY 2010-2011. The “reasons to believe” made a reference to a tax evasion report received from the investigation unit of the Income Tax Department. The facts were ascertained by the investigation unit. The reasons to believe referred to the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the findings recorded in it. Though the notice under Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (which had ceased to exist upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Court held “substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record” to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake. The tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private limited company into an LLP. Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner. The PAN number of LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents. The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner. It was in this background that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview of Section 292-B for the following reasons : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155 : [2018] 90 

“18…. There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11-4-2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was replied and dealt with by them. The fact that notice was addressed to M/s. Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent. No prejudice was caused.”

29. The decision in Spice Entertainment [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 3210 : (2012) 280 ELT 43] was distinguished with the following observations : (Skylight Hospitality case [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155   (Delhi)], SCC OnLine Del para 19)

“19. Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment v. CIT [This judgment has also been referred to as Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. CIT, (2012) 247 CTR 500 (Del)]. Spice Corp. Ltd., the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company. After notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Ltd., the assessing officer was informed about amalgamation but the assessment order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company. In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of assessment order was raised and examined. It was held that the assessment order was invalid. This was not a case wherein notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act. Order was in the name of nonexisting person and hence void and illegal.”

30. From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6-42018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] in the special leave petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292-B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7155  (Delhi)] has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in:

31. There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] (dated 2-11- 2017) and in Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] (dated 6-4-2018).”

“32. Mr. Zoheb Hossain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. was under Sections 147 and 148. Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292-B. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 64-2018 [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147], however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the special leave petition were the peculiar facts of the case. Those facts have been noted above. What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity. Hence, while dismissing the special leave petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the Court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected under Section 292-B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP [Skylight Hospitality LLP v. CIT, (2018) 13 SCC 147] on the other hand. It is of relevance to refer to Section 292-B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows:

“292-B. Return of income, etc., not to be invalid on certain grounds.—No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.”

In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292-B.

33. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death. Section 170 provides as follows:

“170. Succession to business otherwise than on death.—

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, “income” includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession.”

“36. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a coordinate Bench of two learned Judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] on 2-11-2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353] has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the special leave petition for AY 20112012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment [CIT v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd., (2020) 18 SCC 353].

37. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the Court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-2012 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-2013. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.”

“18. Amalgamation, thus, is unlike the winding up of a corporate entity. In the case of amalgamation, the outer shell of the corporate entity is undoubtedly destroyed; it ceases to exist. Yet, in every other sense of the term, the corporate venture continues – enfolded within the new or the existing transferee entity. In other words, the business and the adventure lives on but within a new corporate residence, i.e., the transferee-company. It is, therefore, essential to look beyond the mere concept of destruction of corporate entity which brings to an end or terminates any assessment proceedings. There are analogies in civil law and procedure where upon amalgamation, the cause of action or the complaint does not per se cease-depending of course, upon the structure and objective of enactment. Broadly, the quest of legal systems and courts has been to locate if a successor or representative exists in relation to the particular cause or action, upon whom the assets might have devolved or upon whom the liability in the event it is adjudicated, would fall.”

“40. The facts of the present case are distinctive, as evident from the following sequence:

“41. In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident – is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the Revenue of the directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before the Commissioner of Incometax, and a cross-appeal was filed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. Even the affidavit before this court is on behalf of the director of MRPL. Furthermore, the assessment order painstakingly attributes specific amounts surrendered by MRPL, and after considering the special auditor’s report, brings specific amounts to tax, in the search assessment order. That order is no doubt expressed to be of MRPL (as the assessee) – but represented by the transferee, MIPL. All these clearly indicate that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability. The Assessing Officer, on the other hand, had the option of making a common order, with MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts, relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home D’cor Pvt. Ltd.). The mere choice of the Assessing Officer in issuing a separate order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot nullify it. Right from the time it was issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i. e., MIPL) treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order – and section 394(2). Furthermore, it would be anybody’s guess, if any refund were due, as to whether MIPL would then say that it is not entitled to it, because the refund order would be issued in favour of a nonexisting company (MRPL). Having regard to all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the conduct of the assessee, commencing from the date the search took place, and before all forums, reflects that it consistently held itself out as the assessee. The approach and order of the Assessing Officer is, in this court’s opinion in consonance with the decision in Marshall and Sons (supra), which had held that:

“an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the transferee company taking into account the income of both the transferor and transferee company.”

42. Before concluding, this court notes and holds that whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case.

43. In view of the foregoing discussion and having regard to the facts of this case, this court is of the considered view, that the impugned order of the High Court cannot be sustained; it is set aside. Since the appeal of the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax was not heard on the merits, the matter is restored to the file of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which shall proceed to hear the parties on the merits of the appeal – as well as the crossobjections, on issues, other than the nullity of the assessment order, on merits. The appeal is allowed, in the above terms, without order on costs.”