IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Reserved On

10.02.2021

Pronounced On

12.02.2021

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN

W.P.No.2779 of 2017

and

W.M.P.Nos.2714 of 2017 & 9640 of 2019

(Through Video Conferencing)

M/s. Mando Automotive India Private Limited,

(Company into which Mando India Ltd. was

amalgamated)

Represented by its Authorized Signatory,

S.Logitha,

Plant – II, F 64, SIPCOT Industrial Park,

Irrungattukottai,

Sriperumbudur – 602 117.

... Petitioner

Vs.

The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

Corporate Circle 4(1),

4^th Floor, Main Building,

121, Mahatma Gandhi Road,

Chennai – 600 034.

... Respondent

Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution

of India, to issue a Writ of Certiorarifi to call for the

records of the respondent and quash the impugned order in

AAACM7698H/13-14 dated 31.12.2016 made under Section 143(3)

r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the Assessment

2013-14.

For Petitioner : Mr.N.V.Balaji.

For Respondent : M/s.Hema Muralikrishnan

Senior Standing Counsel.

O R D E R

The petitioner is aggrieved by the impugned order dated

31.12.2016 passed by the respondent under Section 143(3) read

with Section 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the

Assessment Year 2013-2014. The impugned order, a draft

assessment order passed by the respondent is primarily sought

to be challenged on the ground that it has been passed in the

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

name of Mando India Limited which company has since

merged/amalgamated with the petitioner company in terms of an

order dated 25.06.2013 in Company Petition. Nos.99 and 100 of

2013 and had ceased to exist.

2. It is submitted that the said Mando India Ltd has

ceased to exist in the eyes of law with effect from 01.3.2013

being the effective date in terms of the order dated

25.06.2013 of this Court in Company Petition Nos.99 and 100 of

2013 and was ordered to be dissolved without being wound.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has primary

relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Maruti Suzuki India

Ltd, 2019 SCC Online SC 928. He draws my attention to

paragraph 33 of the said judgement, wherein, it has been held

that where an assessing officer was informed about the

amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the

approved scheme of amalgamation and where a notice was issued

only in its name, the basis on which the notice was invoked

was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the

amalgamating entity ceased to exist upon the approved Scheme

of Amalgamation.

4. The Court therefore held that participation in the

proceeding by the appellant therein cannot operate as an

estoppel against law. The Court concluded that the revenue’s

appeal against the decision of the Delhi High Court in Spice

Entertainment Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Service Tax, in ITA 475

of 2011 and ITA No. 476 of 2011, Judgement dated 03.08.2011,

holds the field in as much as the Special Leave Petition filed

by the Income Tax department in Civil Appeal No.285 of 2014

along with batch of other cases were dismissed by a common

order by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated

02.11.2017.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits

that after the order amalgamating the noticee company Mando

India Ltd with the petitioner, the petitioner had not only

filed the details with the Registrar of Companies on

08.07.2013 but also with the respondent on 20.05.2014 and

obtained dated acknowledgement. It is under these

circumstances, a notice dated 20.08.2015 under Section 143 (2)

of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Mando India

Limited for the Assessment Year 2013-14.

6. It is further submitted that for the subsequent

Assessment Year 2014-15, a notice dated 28.08.2015 was issued

by the respondent in the