Assessment orders against non-existing entities post-amalgamation are void ab initio, necessitating assessments in the name of the amalgamated company.

JUDGMENT :

(Jitendra Jain, J.) :

1. This group of appeals for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 and Writ Petition No.772 of 1999 are, by consent of both the parties, disposed of by the common order since the jurisdictional issue raised in the appeals filed by the appellant-assessee-(RIL) is common in all these appeals and the outcome of these appeals would have direct bearing on appeals filed by the revenue and writ petition filed by petitioner-RIL.

2. Mr. Mistri, learned Senior Counsel appears in the Writ Petition and all appeals filed by the assessee. Mr. Suresh Kumar appears in ITXA Nos.1313 of 2007 and 1380 of 2007 for revenue-respondent and Mr. Bajpayee in ITXA Nos.6033 of 2010 and 6099 of 2010.

3. The tabular statement of appeals and writ petition are as under :-

4. The six appeals for the assessment years 1993-94 to 1995-96 are filed by the appellant-assessee M/s. Reliance Industries Ltd. (RIL) and the revenue has filed two appeals for the assessment years 1994-95 being cross-appeals.

5. All the assessee’s appeals were admitted in the year 2008 and the revenue’s appeals were admitted in the year 2013 on the questions of law set out in the respective orders of admission. However, we do not propose to reproduce the questions of law admitted by this Court in the years 2008 and 2013 since these questions were on merits of the additions. However, when these appeals were taken up for final hearing in the year 2025, the appellant raised a preliminary jurisdictional ground on whether the assessment orders for these years could at all have been passed in the name of M/s. Reliance Polyethylene Limited (‘RPEL’) and M/s. Reliance Polypropylene Limited (‘RPPL’) non-existing companies on account of amalgamation order by which these companies were merged with Reliance Industries Limited (RIL).

6. This Court on 20 January 2025 in this group of appeals had passed the order permitting the appellant-RIL to raise the jurisdictional ground since same goes to the root of the matter.

7. The order dated 20 January 2025 passed by this Court, for the sake of convenience is transcribed hereinbelow:-

“1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. On the issue of framing additional substantial questions of law, on 13 January 2025, we made the following order:-
“1. At the disclosure that one of us (Jitendra Jain, J.) has shares in the petitioner/respondent company, learned counsel for the parties states that they have no objection to this bench taking up this matter.
2. Accordingly, we will proceed with the final hearing in these matters.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. In the Income Tax Appeals, Mr.Mistri, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants urged framing of an additional substantial question of law, which according to him, is not only involved in these appeals but is a question which goes to the root of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to make the assessment order. Mr. Mistri proposes the following question :-
“Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order under Section 143 (3) of the Act passed on a non-existent entity is bad in law,