The company I’ve taken for this caselaw is Sony Mobile Communications. This case was between the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax and Sony mobile communications. It took place in the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi.
The case is about how the appeals made by ITAT were void as they made the appeals on a non-existent company, therefore, they came to a conclusion that the assessment framed by the AO on a non-existent company is a nullity in the eyes of law and void and the provisions of section 292B cannot rescue the department.
They already had all the facts about this case available on the record so there was no need for fresh examination of the facts. The Respondent-Assessee filed its return of income for the subject assessment years, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. After that the name of the Respondent- Assessee, w.e.f. 18th April, 2012, was changed to Sony Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. Then Sony Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd., w.e.f. 1st April, 2013, was merged with Sony India Pvt. Ltd. They informed the Appellant-Revenue, about the same by a letter dated 6th December, 2013 then the factum of merger was also mentioned in another letter dated 17th February, 2014. However, the AO passed the draft assessment order dated 31st March, 2014, in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. Even after being informed several times the AO still passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3)/144C in the name of Sony Ericsson Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd., therefore, the final order was framed on a non-existent company and the question for adjudication was, whether the said defect was curable or made the final assessment order void.
Further, there was a difference of opinion between Sanjeev Narula, J and Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J as Sanjeev Narula, J was unable to agree with the conclusions reached by Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
He said, “so far as the first question of law concerning the scope of enquiry by the ITAT arising out of a remand by this Court is concerned, I am in complete agreement with the conclusion drawn by my esteemed colleague. In addition to the reasoning given, I would like to add that the additional ground of appeal urged by the Respondent-Assessee was purely legal, arising from the facts which were already on record in the assessment proceedings. In these circumstances, I see no good reason to deny the Respondent-Assessee the opportunity to urge a new legal ground dealing with a jurisdictional issue, as it goes to the root of the matter and is necessary to be considered in order to correctly assess the tax liability of an assessee. Therefore, the said question does not arise for our consideration in the present appeal.” But he had a difference of opinion in the second question he further mentions that the above noted company, had merged with M/s Sony India Pvt. Ltd. w.e.f. 1st April, 2013, after the High Court approved the scheme of amalgamation on 23rd July, 2013. The Respondent had sent intimation to the Department informing it of the amalgamation of M/s Sony Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. with Sony India Pvt. Ltd. The ITAT observed that the DRP in its order dated 21st October, 2014, mentioned the name of the Assessee as “M/s Sony Mobile Communications Pvt. Ltd. (now merged with Sony India Pvt. Ltd)”. Nevertheless, the Assessing Officer (AO) passed the final assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 22nd December, 2014, and framed the final assessment under 143(3)/144C, in the name of “M/s Sony Mobile Communications (India) Pvt. Ltd”. The final order was therefore framed on a non-existent company. Therefore, he concluded that since the assessment in this case had been made on a non-existent company, it was a nullity in the eyes of law, and the provisions of section 292B cannot rescue the department. The appeal of the Respondent-Assessee was thus allowed on this legal ground, and the other grounds urged by the Respondent-Assessee, rendered academic in nature, were not adjudicated.
Since the difference of opinion here, is on whether a substantial question of law arises, we are of the view that as per the said tradition, the question of law has to be framed and appeal admitted.