IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On

04.02.2022

Pronounced On

08.04.2022

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.23566 of 2021

and

W.M.P.Nos.24788 & 24789 of 2021

M/s.Cognizant Technology Solutions

India Private Limited,

Represented by its Authorised Signatory

V.N.Achutarama Gupta. ...Petitioner

vs.

The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax,

Central Circle 1(1), Chennai,

Investigation Building,

No.46, (Old No.108), Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Nungambakkam, Chennai 600 034.

...Respondent

Prayer : Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, for issuance of a Writ of Certioari,

calling for the records on the file of the respondent and quash

the impugned order in PAN : AAACD3312M dated 30.09.2021 in DIN &

Order No.ITBA/AST/S/144/2021-22/1036081063(1) passed under

Section 144 of the Income Ttax Act, 1961 for the Assessment year

2016-17.

For Petitioner

: Mr. N.V.Balaji

For Respondent : Mr.A.P.Srinivas

Senior Standing Counsel

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:

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

(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.

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

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 c