O R D E R

The petitioner has challenged the impugned Assessment Order dated 30.09.2021 passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act,1961 by invoking best judgment method. The specific case of the petitioner is that five different assessees were amalgamated with the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2016 namely:

(1)M/s.Cognizant Technology Services Private Limited (Transferor Company 1);

(2)M/s.Cognizant Global Services Private Limited (Transferor Company 2);

(3)M/s.Excellence Data Research Private Limited (Transferor Company 3);

(4)M/s.Itaas India Private Limited (Transferor Company 4) and (5)M/s.Saband Software Technologies Private Limited (Transferor Company 5) with M/s.Cognizant Technology Solutions India Private Limited (Transferee Company)

2. These five companies were also subjected to separate Assessment and Draft Assessment order were passed on various dates on 18.12.2019, 10.12.2019 and 10.12.2019. Inrespect of Transferor Nos.1, 2 & 4 the income has been added into the Income of the petitioner even though they were to be assessed separately.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after draft assessment was passed in respect of Transferor Companies Nos.1, 2 and 4, these transferor companies approached the Dispute Resolution Panel. Separate orders dated 23.03.2021 were passed by the Dispute Resolution Panel inrespect to transferor companies Nos.1, 2 & 4.

4. It is therefore submitted that though this transferor Company stood merged and do not have any independent existence there cannot be any clubbing of income of these three transferor companies into the petitioner's company .

5. It is further submitted that while completing the assessment under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the respondent has wrongly clubbed the portion of the income of the Transferor companies. It is submitted that these incomes cannot be concluded into the income of the petitioner during the same assessee.

6. It is submitted that for invoking Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was without any merits.

7. Opposing the prayer, the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondent submits that the impugned order is well reasoned and requires no interference. It is submitted that the order has been passed by taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in PCIT vs.

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., in C.A.No.5409 of 2018.

8. It is submitted that the petitioner has an alternate remedy before the Appellate commissioner under Section 246A of the Income Tax Act 1961 and therefore the writ petition is devoid of merits. It is further submitted that the issue as to whether the respondent could have added the income of the transferee company into the it or not is a matter which pertain to issue on merits and not on jurisdiction.

9. It is submitted that even if the respondents has passed wrong order, it cannot be stated that the orders is without jurisdiction and therefore the petitioner has to workout the remedy before the Appellate Commissioner.

10. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the returns filed by the petitioner on 13.11.2016 and the order of the Regional Director. The five transferor companies merged with the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2016.

11. The dispute in the present case pertains in the Assessment Year

2016-17 ( previous year 2015-16). Though 5 transferor companies merged with the petitioner's company with effect from 01.04.2016, the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed orders in the name of the non existing Transferor companies. A separate Draft Assessment Order was also passed on various dates under Section 144C, the detailed below in the name of the non-existing transferor companies:-