* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment Reserved on: 13.11.2025 Judgment delivered on: 16.03.2026 Judgment uploaded on: As per Digital Signature~

+ ITA 586/2025 PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1 .....Appellant versus BOEING INDIA PVT. LTD. .....Respondent Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Debesh Panda, SSC, Ms. Zehra Khan, JSC, Mr. Vikramaditya Singh, JSC, Ms.

Nivedita, Ms.Delphina Shinglai, Mr.

Harshpreet Singh, Ms. A. Shankar, Ms.

Ravicha Sharma, Advocates.

For the Respondent : Mr. Sachit Jolly, Sr Advocate with Ms.

Sherry Goyal, Ms. Viyushti Rawat, Mr. Devansh Jain, Mr. Sohum Dua and Mr. A.

Shankar Bajpai, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

JUDGMENT

V. KAMESWAR RAO, J.

1. This appeal has been filed with the following prayers:

“A. Admit the appeal on the substantial questions of law as proposed in Para 3, allow the same, and set aside the impugned judgment dated 27.03.2024 in ITA No.828/Del/2021 by the Hon‟ble ITAT;

B. Grant such other relief as this Hon‟ble Court may deem fit and proper.”

2. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), against the judgment dated 27.03.2024 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA No.828/Del/2021 whereby the ITAT has allowed the ITA in favour of the respondent. The ITAT, while relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of PCIT v. Maruti Suzuki (2020) 18 SCC 331 and of the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of CIT v. Sony Mobile Communications India Pvt. Ltd. 2023/DHC/001366, had held that the final assessment order dated 30.03.2021 (wherein the income of the respondent was assessed as Rs.1,21,75,58,080/-) was void ab initio as the same was issued in the name of the erstwhile amalgamating entity before amalgamation i.e., Boeing International Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. (BICIPL) instead of the amalgamated entity named Boeing India Pvt. Ltd.

(BIPL).

3. Before delving into the merits of the controversy it is pertinent to give a factual background leading to the filing of this appeal. It is an admitted fact that the respondent is an eligible assessee for the purposes of Section 144C of the Act. The present matter relates to the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17 and the return of Income was filed by the respondent as on 29.11.2016 wherein the assessee had reported an income of Rs.60,55,17,000/-. It is also an admitted fact that the notice for initiating scrutiny assessment under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 21.07.2017. It was thereafter, that the assessee informed the Revenue about the amalgamation.

4. The ITAT in the impugned decision dated 27.03.2024 held as under:-

“9. We have given a thoughtful consideration to rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have also applied our mind to the judicial precedents cited before us. The factual matrix reveals that the return of income for the impugned assessment year was filed in the name of the erstwhile company Boeing International Corporation India Ltd. in November 2016. However, post filing of return of income, Boeing International Corporation India Ltd. merging with Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. through a scheme of merger approved on 27.02.2018. There is no dispute that the fact of merger was immediately brought to the notice of the Assessing Officer by the assessee through letter dated 10.04.2018 with all supporting evidences. In fact, in the remand report dated 26.02.2019 furnished before learned DRP in course of proceedings in assessment year 2015- 16, the Assessing Officer has clearly accepted this fact.

10. Thus, it is an undisputed fact that the merger of Boeing Internationals Corporation India Ltd. with Boeing India Pvt. Ltd. was very much in the knowledge of the Assessing Officer much prior to framing of the draft assessment order for the impugned assessment year. In fact, at the draft assessment stage, the Assessing Officer made a refe