Subscribe to the Bombay Chartered Accountant Journal Subscribe Now!

October 2025

Where draft assessment order is passed in the name of a non-existent entity despite the Assessing Officer having been duly informed of the amalgamation, such an assessment is void and not a procedural irregularity that can be cured by invoking section 292B.

By Jagdish T Punjabi, Chartered Accountant Devendra Jain & Aditya Bhatt, Advocates
Reading Time 3 mins

52. (2025) 177 taxmann.com 546 (Ahd Trib)

Man Energy Solutions India (P.) Ltd. vs. ITO

A.Y.: 2012-13 Date of Order: 11.08.2025

Sections : 144C, 292B

Where draft assessment order is passed in the name of a non-existent entity despite the Assessing Officer having been duly informed of the amalgamation, such an assessment is void and not a procedural irregularity that can be cured by invoking section 292B.

FACTS

Man Turbo India Pvt. Ltd. (MTIPL) stood amalgamated into Man Diesel & Turbo India Pvt. Ltd. (MDTIPL), w.e.f. 01.01.2013, pursuant to the Scheme of Amalgamation sanctioned by the Bombay High Court vide order dated 28.03.2014. The amalgamation scheme was made effective upon filing with the Registrar of Companies on 21.05.2015. The intimation of amalgamation was given to the AO as well as the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO). However, despite these prior intimations, the Transfer Pricing order dated 21.01.2016, draft assessment order dated 01.03.2016, Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) direction under section 144C(5) dated 13.12.2016 and the final assessment order dated 30.01.2017 were all passed in the name of MTIPL, which wa

Read More
Download PDF

You May Also Like

Where the employer paid a sum to LIC under a Voluntary Retirement Scheme (VRS) for allotment of annuity policy in favour of an employee payable in instalments in future, such sum cannot be taxed as perquisite in the hands of the employee in the year of purchase of annuity since the employee did not acquire any vested or enforceable right over the said amount in the relevant assessment year.

Presumption set out in Section 292C of the Act does not apply since the documents in question was not found or impounded from the appellant’s premises but in the course of survey (not search) conducted against a third party.