Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Successor of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.) v. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai
[Citation -2020-LL-0729-6]

Citation 2020-LL-0729-6
Appellant Name Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Successor of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.)
Respondent Name The Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai
Court HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 29/07/2020
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags scheme of amalgamation • non-existent company • amalgamating company • merger
Bot Summary: The only grievance made before us in the present appeal filed by the Assessee is that the learned Tribunal by its order dated 14 September 2016 has erred in rejecting the appeal filed by the Assessee on the technical ground that the memo of appeal was filed in the name of the company M/s.Zenta Knowledge Services Private Limited which lost its identity after its merger with M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 1 April 2012 under a scheme duly sanctioned by the High Court under the provisions of the Companies Act. 380 of 2017 3/5 known how the assessee could file an appeal in the name of the non-existent company. Similarly an appeal filed by the non-existent company also cannot tie treated as a valid appeal. The application said to be filed by the assessee to substitute the amalgamating company namely M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. cannot be entertained at this stage. There is no question of substitution of any existent company in the place of a non-existent company. When such being the position, without considering the order of the High Court in the matter of amalgamation and the automatic transfer of litigations of transferor companies into transferee company, the Tribunal has simply rejected the appeal, on the ground that the appeal was filed in the name of non-existing person. 380 of 2017 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. 7.Therefore, we are inclined to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 14 September 2016, with request to the Tribunal to decide the appeals of the assessee and the Revenue and the cross appeal of the assessee, on merits and in accordance with law.


Order dt.29.07.2020 T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 1/5 IN HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 29.07.2020 CORAM HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI AND HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Successor of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.) Plant 3, Godrej & Boyce Complex, LBS Marg, Vikroli (W) Mumbai 400 079 ... Appellant vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 3(2) Chennai 600 034 ... Respondent Prayer ::- Appeal filed against order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Chennai dated 14.09.2016 in ITA No.1129/Mds/2015. For appellant : Mr.Nishat Thakkar for Mr.R.Venkatnarayanan for M/s.Subbaraaiyar Padmanabhan For respondent : Mr.M.Swaminathan, Ms.Pushpa ORDER (Made by DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J.) Court was held by Video Conference, as per Resolution of Full Court dated 3 July 2020, by Judges at their respective residence and counsel, staff of Court appearing from their respective residences. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.07.2020 T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 2/5 2. Heard Mr.Nishat Thakkar, learned counsel for appellant and Mr.Swaminathan, learned counsel for Department. 3. only grievance made before us in present appeal filed by Assessee is that learned Tribunal by its order dated 14 September 2016 has erred in rejecting appeal filed by Assessee on technical ground that memo of appeal was filed in name of company M/s.Zenta Knowledge Services Private Limited which lost its identity after its merger with M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. with effect from 1 April 2012 under scheme duly sanctioned by High Court under provisions of Companies Act. It is also brought to our notice that M/s.Accenture Service Pvt. Ltd. has subsequently merged with M/s.Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., present appellant before us. 4. operative part of order of learned Tribunal in paragraph nos. 3 and 4 are quoted below for ready reference. 3. We heard Smt. Jayanthi Krishnan, learned department representative also. When assessee claims that M/s.Zenta Knowledge Services Private Limited was not in existence on date of order passed by AO,TPO and DRP,it is not http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.07.2020 T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 3/5 known how assessee could file appeal in name of non-existent company. This Tribunal is of considered opinion that order passed by AO against non-existent company on date of order cannot stand in eye of law. Similarly appeal filed by non-existent company also cannot tie treated as valid appeal. Moreover, application said to be filed by assessee to substitute amalgamating company namely M/s.Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd. cannot be entertained at this stage. In other words, when appeal is filed in name of non-existent company, there cannot be any substitution during pendency of proceedings. In other words, appellate proceedings initiated by nonexistent company before this Tribunal cannot survive at all. Therefore, there is no question of substitution of any existent company in place of non-existent company. 4. In view of above, both appeals filed by assessee as well as by department are dismissed and also cross objection filed by assessee is dismissed. 5. learned counsel for department, Mr.M.Swaminathan, submitted that appeal filed by Department also deserves to be heard by Tribunal on merits, in case matter is remanded to Tribunal for http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.07.2020 T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 4/5 deciding appeal on merits. 6. On perusal of records, we noticed that by virtue of scheme of amalgamation filed before High Court, M/s. Zenta Knowledge Services Private Limited merged with M/s.Accenture Services Private Limited. By virtue of said merger, all existing and future litigation of transferor company will be transferred and continued in name of transferee company viz., M/s.Accenture Services Private Limited with effect from 1st April 2012. It has also brought to our knowledge that this M/s. Accenture Services Private Limited has subsequently merged with M/s. Accenture Solutions Private Limited. By virtue of this merger, all litigations pursued against or by both M/s. Zenta Knowledge Services Private Limited and M/s.Accenture Services Private Limited shall automatically be transferred and will be continued in name of transferee company viz., M/s. Accenture Solutions Private Limited. When such being position, without considering order of High Court in matter of amalgamation and automatic transfer of litigations of transferor companies into transferee company, Tribunal has simply rejected appeal, on ground that appeal was filed in name of non-existing person. We do not agree with said finding of Tribunal as same is not legally sustainable. http://www.judis.nic.in Order dt.29.07.2020 T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 5/5 DR.VINEET KOTHARI, J. and KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J. (tar) 7.Therefore, we are inclined to set aside order of Tribunal dated 14 September 2016, with request to Tribunal to decide appeals of assessee (M/s.Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd.,) and Revenue and cross appeal of assessee, on merits and in accordance with law. contentions of parties are left open before Tribunal and once appeals are decided by Tribunal on merits, both parties will be free to raise their substantial questions of law again under Section 260A of Act, if consider appropriate. 8. With these observations, present appeal is disposed of. No costs. (V.K.,J.) (K.R.,J.) 29.07.2020 kpl/tar To Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, D Bench, Chennai. T.C.A.No.380 of 2017 http://www.judis.nic.in Accenture Solutions Pvt. Ltd., (Successor of Accenture Services Pvt. Ltd.) v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Corporate Circle 3(2), Chennai
Report Error