Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd.)
[Citation -2019-LL-0917-64]

Citation 2019-LL-0917-64
Appellant Name Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4
Respondent Name Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd.)
Court HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 17/09/2019
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags scheme of amalgamation • amalgamating company
Bot Summary: It is pointed out that the name of the respondent is not Genpact India as it is mentioned but the same is Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. 2. The name of the respondent is corrected to Genpact India Pvt. Ltd. 3. The revenue has preferred the present appeal to assail the order dated 27.04.2018 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 199/Del/2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. The order passed by the Assessing Officer in the name of the predecessor of the respondent assessee, despite having notice of the said amalgamation was incompetent. It is the admitted position that the Assessing Officer had notice of the said amalgamation vide a notice dat ed 24.01.2011 issued to the Assessing Officer. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012.


IN HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI ITA 168/2019, CM APPL. 40543/2019 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-4 Appellant Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr. Standing counsel for Revenue. versus GENPACT INDIA (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS GENPACT INFRASTRUCTURE (BHOPAL) PVT.LTD. ) Respondent Through: Mr. Vishal Kalra and Mr. S. S. Tomar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA ORDER 17.09.2019 CM APPL. 40544/2019 (application under Section 151 CPC for amendment of cause title) 1. By way of this application, respondent seeks correction of cause title in present appeal. It is pointed out that name of respondent is not Genpact India as it is mentioned but same is Genpact India Pvt. Ltd . 2. application is allowed since it is not opposed. name of respondent is corrected to Genpact India Pvt. Ltd . 3. amended memo of parties filed along with application is taken on record. ITA 168/2019 4. revenue has preferred present appeal to assail order dated 27.04.2018 passed by Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No. 199/Del/2015 for assessment year 2010-11. order passed by Assessing Officer in name of predecessor of respondent assessee, despite having notice of said amalgamation was incompetent. 5. It is admitted position that Assessing Officer had notice of said amalgamation vide notice dat ed 24.01.2011 issued to Assessing Officer. Despite that Assessing Officer passed draft order under Section 143 (3) read with Section 144 C of Act on 28.02.2014 in name of predecessor of amalgamated company. Supreme Court in recent decision in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) has inter alia held as follows; 33. In present case, despite fact that assessing officer was informed of amalgamating company having ceased to exist as result of approved scheme of amalgamation, jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with legal principle that amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in proceedings by appellant in circumstances cannot operate as estoppel against law. This position now holds field in view of judgment of co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed appeal of Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in case of respondent while dismissing Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on decision in Spice Enfotainment. 6. In view of aforesaid, there is no merit in present appeal and no question arises for consideration. Hence, petition stands dismissed. VIPIN SANGHI, J SANJEEV NARULA, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2019 Pallavi Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax-4 v. Genpact India (Previously Known As Genpact Infrastructure (Bhopal) Pvt. Ltd.)
Report Error