Case: PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) - 2 Vs. M/S. MAHAGUN REALTORS (P) LTD

return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised returns was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation order. 4. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including the MRPL and other companies: (i) When search and seizure of the Mahagun group took place, no indication was given about the amalgamation. (ii) A statement made on 20.03.2007 by Mr. Amit Jain, MRPLs managing director, during statutory survey proceedings under Section 133A, unearthed discrepancies in the books of account, in relation to amounts of money in MRPLs account. The specific amount admitted was Rs.5.072 crores, in the course of the statement recorded. (iii) The warrant was in the name of MRPL. The directors of MRPL and MIPL made a combined statement under Section 132 of the Act, on 27.08.2008. (iv) A total of Rs. 30 crores cash, which was seized- was surrendered in relation to MRPL and other transferor companies, as well as MIPL, on 27.08.2008 in the course of the admission, when a statement was recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act, by Mr. Amit Jain. 5. Upon being issued with a notice to file returns, a return was filed in the name of MRPL on 28.05.2010. Before that, on two dates, i.e., 22/27.07.2010, letters were written on behalf of MRPL, intimating about the amalgamation, but this was for AY 2007-08 (for which separate proceedings had been initiated under Section 153A) and not for AY 2006-07. 6. The return specifically suppressed – and did not disclose the amalgamation (with MIPL) – as the response to Query 27(b) was N.A. 7. The return – apart from specifically being furnished in the name of MRPL, also contained its PAN number. 8. During the assessment proceedings, there was full participation – on behalf of all transferor companies, and MIPL. A special audit was directed (which is possible only after issuing notice under Section 142). Objections to the special audit were filed in respect of portions relatable to MRPL. 9. After fully participating in the proceedings which were specifically in respect of the business of the erstwhile MRPL for the year ending 31.03.2006, in the cross-objection before the ITAT, for the first time (in the appeal preferred by the Revenue), an additional ground was urged that the assessment order was a nullity because MRPL was not in existence. 10. Assessment order was issued – undoubtedly in relation to MRPL (shown as the assessee, but represented by the transferee company MIPL). 11. Appeals were filed to the CIT (and a cross-objection, to ITAT) – by MRPL represented by MIPL. 12. At no point in time – the earliest being at the time of search, and subsequently, on receipt of notice, was it plainly stated that MRPL was not in existence, and its business assets and liabilities, taken over by MIPL. 13. The counter affidavit filed before this court – (dated 07.11.2020) has been affirmed by Shri Amit Jain S/o Shri P.K. Jain, who- is described in the affidavit as Director of M/S Mahagun Realtors(P) Ltd., R/o…. 41. In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident- is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue of the directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before the CIT, and a cross appeal was filed before ITAT. Even the affidavit before this court is on behalf of the director of MRPL. Furthermore, the assessment order painstakingly attributes specific amounts surrendered by MRPL, and after considering the special auditors report, brings specific amounts to tax, in the search assessment order. That order is no doubt expressed to be of MRPL (as the assessee) - but represented by the transferee, MIPL. All these clearly indicate that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability. The AO, on the other hand, had the option of making a common order, with MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts, relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Décor Pvt. Ltd.). The mere choice of the AO in issuing a separate order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot nullify it. Right from the time it was issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order – and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybodys guess, if any refund were due, as to whether MIPL would then say that it is not entitled to it, because the refund order would be issued in favour of a non-existing company (MRPL). Having regard to all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the conduct of the assessee, commencing from the date the search took place, and before all forums, reflects that it consistently held itself out as the assessee. The approach and order of the AO is, in this courts opinion in consonance with the decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that: an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company. 42. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]20. In Saraswati Syndicate (supra), the facts were that after amalgamation, the transferee company claimed exemption from tax, of a sum which had been allowed as a trading liability- on accrual basis, in the hands of the transferee company which had ceased to exist. The revenue disallowed that claim; that view was upheld. This court stated that:In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another. Reconstruction or amalgamation has no precise legal meaning. The amalgamation is a blending of two or more existing undertakings into one undertaking, the share holders of each blending company become substantially the share-holders in the company which is to carry on the blended undertakings. There may be amalgamation either by the transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company, or by the transfer of one or more undertakings to an existing company. Strictly amalgamation does not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition. See: Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edition Vol. 7 Para 1539. Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blend- ing of one by the other, both amount to amalgamation. When two companies are merged and are so joined, as to form a third company or one is absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity.In M/s General Radio and Appliances Co Ltd v M.A.. Khader (dead) by Lrs., [1986] 2 S.C.C. 656, the effect of amalgamation of two companies was considered. M/s. General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. was tenant of a premises under an agreement providing that the tenant shall not sub-let the premises or any portion thereof to anyone without the consent of the landlord. M/s. General Radio and Appliances Co. Ltd. was amalgamated with M/s. National Ekco Radio and Engineering Co. Ltd. under a scheme of amalgamation and order of the High Court under Sections 391 and 394 of Companies Act, 1956. Under the amalgamation scheme, the transferee company, namely, M/s. National Ekco Radio and Engineering Company had acquired all the interest, rights including leasehold and tenancy rights of the transferor company and the same vested in the transferee company. Pursuant to the amalgamation scheme the transferee company continued to occupy the premises which had been let out to the transferor company. The landlord initiated proceedings for the eviction on the ground of unauthorised sub-letting of the premises by the transferor company. The transferee company set up a defence that by amalgamation of the two companies under the order of the Bombay High Court all interest, rights including lease- hold and tenancy rights held by the transferor company blended with the transferee company, therefore the transferee company was legal tenant and there was no question of any sub-letting. The Rent Controller and the High Court both decreed the landlords suit. This Court in appeal held that under the order of amalgamation made on the basis of the High Courts order, the transferor company ceased to be in existence in the eye of law and it effaced itself for all practical purposes. This decision lays down that after the amalgamation of the two companies the transferor company ceased to have any entity and the amalgamated company ac- quired a new status and it was not possible to treat the two companies as partners or jointly liable in respect of their liabilities and assets. In the instant case the Tribunal rightly held that the appellant company was a separate entity and a different assessee, therefore, the allowance made to Indian Sugar Company, which was a different assessee, could not be held to be the income of the amalgamated company for purposes of Section 41 (1) of the Act. The High Court was in error in holding that even after amalgamation of two companies, the transferor company did not become non-existent instead it continued its entity in a blended form with the appellant company. The High Courts view that on amalgamation there is no complete destruction of corpo- rate personality of the transferor company instead there is a blending of the corporate personality of one with another corporate body and it continues as such with the other is not sustainable in law. The true effect and character of the amalgamation largely depends on the terms of the scheme of merger. But there cannot be any doubt that when two companies amalgamate and merge into one the transferor company loses its entity as it ceases to have its business. However, their respective rights of liabilities are determined under scheme of amalgamation but the corporate entity of the transferor company ceases to exist with effect from the date the amalgamation is made effective.21. Saraswati Syndicate (supra) noticeably was decided in relation to assessment issues when amalgamation was not separately defined under the Income Tax Act. By an amendment of 1967, this term was for the first time defined in the form of Section 2(1A). That provision reads as follows:(1A) amalgamation, in relation to companies, means the merger of one or more companies with another company or the merger of two or more companies to form one company (the company or companies which so merge being referred to as the amalgamating company or companies and the company with which they merge or which is formed as a result of the merger, as the amalgamated company) in such a manner that—(i) all the property of the amalgamating company or companies immediately before the amalgamation becomes the property of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation;(ii) all the liabilities of the amalgamating company of companies immediately before the amalgamation, become the liabilities of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation;(iii) shareholders holding not less than nine-tenths in value of the shares in the amalgamating company or companies (other than shares already held therein immediately before the amalgamation by, or by a nominee for, the amalgamated company or its subsidiary) become shareholders of the amalgamated company by virtue of the amalgamation, otherwise than as a result of the acquisition of the property of one company by another company pursuant to the purchase of such property by the other company or as a result of the distribution of such property to the other company after the winding up of the first mentioned company;22. The effect of amalgamation in the context of income tax, was again considered in another earlier decision, i.e., Marshall Sons and Co. (India) Ltd. v. Income Tax Officer 1996 Supp (9) SCR 216. There, the court held that:14. Every scheme of amalgamation has to necessarily provide a date with effect from which the amalgamation/transfer shall take place. The scheme concerned herein does so provide viz., January 1, 1982. It is true that while sanctioning the scheme, it is open to the Court to modify the said date and prescribe such date of amalgamation/transfer as it thinks appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. If the Court so specifies a date, there is little doubt that such date would be date of amalgamation/date of transfer. But where the Court does not prescribed any specific date but merely sanctions the scheme presented to it - as has happened in this case - it should follow that the rate of amalgamation/date of transfer is the date specified in the scheme as the transfer date. It cannot be otherwise. It must be remembered that before applying to the Court under Section 391(1), a scheme has to be framed and such scheme has to contain a date of amalgamation/transfer. The proceedings before the court may take some time; indeed, they are bound to take some time because several steps provided by Sections 391 to 394 and the relevant Rules have to be followed and complied with. During the period the proceedings are pending before the Court, both the amalgamation units, i.e., the Transferor Company and the Transferee Company may carry on business, as has happened in this case but normally provision is made for this aspect also in the scheme of amalgamation. In the present scheme, Clause 6(b) does expressly provide that with effect from the transfer date, the Transferor Company (Subsidiary Company) shall be deemed to have carried on the business for and on behalf of the Transferee Company (Holding Company) with all attendant consequences. It is equally relevant to notice that the Courts have not only sanctioned the scheme in this case but have also not specified any other date as the date of transfer/amalgamation. In such a situation, it would not be reasonable to say that the scheme of amalgamation takes effect on and from the date of the order sanctioning the scheme. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the notices issued by the Income Tax Officer (impugned in the writ petition) were not warranted in law. The business carried on by the Transferor Company (Subsidiary Company) should be deemed to have been carried on for and on behalf of the Transferee Company. This is the necessary and the logical consequence of the court sanctioning the scheme of amalgamation as presented to it. The order of the Court sanctioning the scheme, the filing of the certified copies of the orders of the court before the Registrar of Companies, the allotment of shares etc. may have all taken place subsequent to the date of amalgamation/transfer, yet the date of amalgamation in the circumstances of this case would be January 1, 1982. This is also the ratio of the decision of the Privy Council in Raghubar Dayal v. The Bank of Upper India Ltd. A.I.R. 1919 P.C. 9, relied on.15. Counsel for the Revenue contended that if the aforesaid view is adopted then several complications will ensue in case the Court refuses to sanction the scheme of amalgamation. We do not see any basis for this apprehension. Firstly, an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company. Secondly, and probably the more advisable course from the point of view of the Revenue would be to make one assessment on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both, of Transferor or Transferee Companies and also to make separate protective assessments on both the Transferor and Transferee Companies separately. There may be a certain practical difficulty in adopting this course inasmuch as separate balance-sheets may not be available for the Transferor and Transferee Companies. But that may not be an insuperable problem inasmuch as assessment can always be made, on the available material, even without a balance-sheet. In certain cases, best-judgment assessment may also be resorted to. Be that as it may, we need not pursue this line of enquiry because it does not arise for consideration in these cases directly.23. Many High Courts in recent years, had mostly relied upon Saraswati Syndicate which was a case where the transferor entity had claimed a certain relief on the basis of the agreed method of accounting. The corresponding obligation to recognise the demands was sought to be disallowed in the subsequent year, in the case of the then transferee company. The decision of the Delhi High Court, in Spice (supra), after discussing the decision in Saraswati Syndicate, went on to explain why assessing an amalgamating company, without framing the order in the name of the transferee company is fatal:10. Section 481 of the Companies Act provides for dissolution of the company. The Company Judge in the High Court can order dissolution of a company on the grounds stated therein. The effect of the dissolution is that the company no more survives. The dissolution puts an end to the existence of the company. It is held in M.H. Smith (Plant Hire) Ltd. v. D.L. Mainwaring (T/A Inshore), 1986 BCLC 342 (CA) that once a company is dissolved it becomes a non-existent party and therefore no action can be brought in its name. Thus an insurance company which was subrogated to the rights of another insured company was held not to be entitled to maintain an action in the name of the company after the latter had been dissolved.11. After the sanction of the scheme on 11th April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exit w.e.f. 1st July, 2003. Even if Spice had filed the returns, it became incumbent upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said dead person. When notice under Section 143(2) was sent, the appellant/amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO. He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record. Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M/s Spice which was non existing entity on that day. In such proceedings and assessment order passed in the name of M/s Spice would clearly be void. Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect. Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.12. Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non- existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act.24. A series of decisions had followed the Delhi High Courts decision in Spice. All these were the subject of special leave petitions, which were disposed of by the following order in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Spice Enfotainment Ltd (2020) 18 SCC 353.Delay condoned. Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties. We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) [Spice Entertainment Ltd. v. Commr. of Service Tax, (2011 SCC OnLine Del); CIT v. Dimension Apparels (P) Ltd., (2015) 370 ITR 288 ; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2014 SCC OnLine Del 7678; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., [ITA No. 721 of 2014, order dated 24-11-2014 (Del)]; CIT v. Radha Appearals (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14568; CIT v. Intel Technology (India) (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Kar 9493; CIT v. Chanakaya Exports (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14567; CIT v. Mayank Traders (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14633; CIT v. P.D. Associates (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14632; CIT v. Foryu Overseas (P) Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 14566; CIT v. Sapient Consulting Ltd., 2016 SCC OnLine Del 6615; passed by the High Court. In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions. Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.25. This court, without elaborate discussion, approved the reasoning in various judgments which held that upon the cessation of the transferor company, assessment of the transferor (or amalgamated company) was impermissible.27. In another recent decision, McDowell and Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnataka Central (2017) 13 SCC 799  this court had occasion to consider the effect of amalgamation of two companies, and the rights and liabilities in relation to claim for depreciation, under the Act. The assessee had taken over a sick company-HPL – by amalgamation; HPL ceased to have any identity after amalgamation. The relative rights, however, were determined in terms of the scheme of amalgamation. The benefit of interest accrued after the company ceased to exist was availed of by the assessee (the successor) company. The assessee was allowed to set off the amalgamated losses of the company amalgamated with it, i.e., HPL. This benefit accrued to the assessee under Section 72A of the Act. The court held that when the assessee was allowed the benefit of the accumulated loss, while computing those losses, the income which accrued to it had to be adjusted and only thereafter net loss could have been allowed to be set off by the assessee company. The AO had made those calculations. The assessee was given the benefit of the accumulated loss of the amalgamated company. Its effect was that though those losses were suffered by the amalgamated company they were deemed to be treated as losses of the assessee by virtue of Section 72A. This court negatived the plea that even while taking advantage of the accumulated loss, in calculating them at the hands of amalgamated company, i.e., HPL, the income accrued under Section 41(1) of the Act at the hands of HPL could not be accounted for. It was held that it had to be adjusted to see what was the actual accumulated losses, the benefit of which had to be extended to the assessee. This court considered Section 41(1) along with Section 72A of the Act.31. In Maruti Suzuki (supra), the scheme of amalgamation was approved on 29.01.2013 w.e.f. 01.04.2012, the same was intimated to the AO on 02.04.2013, and the notice under Section 143(2) for AY 2012-13 was issued to amalgamating company on 26.09.2013. This court in facts and circumstances observed the following:35. In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non- existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B.39. 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 basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Entertainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Entertainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Entertainment.40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.32. The court, undoubtedly noticed Saraswati Syndicate. Further, the judgment in Spice (supra) and other line of decisions, culminating in this courts order, approving those judgments, was also noticed. Yet, the legislative change, by way of introduction of Section 2 (1A), defining amalgamation was not taken into account. Further, the tax treatment in the various provisions of the Act were not brought to the notice of this court, in the previous decisions.33. There is no doubt that MRPL amalgamated with MIPL and ceased to exist thereafter; this is an established fact and not in contention. The respondent has relied upon Spice and Maruti Suzuki (supra) to contend that the notice issued in the name of the amalgamating company is void and illegal. The facts of present case, however, can be distinguished from the facts in Spice and Maruti Suzuki on the following bases.34. Firstly, in both the relied upon cases, the assessee had duly informed the authorities about the merger of companies and yet the assessment order was passed in the name of amalgamating/non-existent company. However, in the present case, for AY 2006-07, there was no intimation by the assessee regarding amalgamation of the company. The ROI for the AY 2006-07 first filed by the respondent on 30.06.2006 was in the name of MRPL. MRPL amalgamated with MIPL on 11.05.2007, w.e.f. 01.04.2006. In the present case, the proceedings against MRPL started in 27.08.2008- when search and seizure was first conducted on the Mahagun group of companies. Notices under Section 153A and Section 143(2) were issued in the name MRPL and the representative from MRPL corresponded with the department in the name of MRPL. On 28.05.2010, the assessee filed its ROI in the name of MRPL, and in the Business Reorganization column of the form mentioned not applicable in amalgamation section. Though the respondent contends that they had intimated the authorities by letter dated 22.07.2010, it was for AY 2007-2008 and not for AY 2006-07. For the AY 2007- 08 to 2008-2009, separate proceedings under Section 153A were initiated against MIPL and the proceedings against MRPL for these two assessment years were quashed by the Additional CIT by order dated 30.11.2010 as the amalgamation was disclosed. In addition, in the present case the assessment order dated 11.08.2011 mentions the name of both the amalgamating (MRPL) and amalgamated (MIPL) companies.35. Secondly, in the cases relied upon, the amalgamated companies had participated in the proceedings before the department and the courts held that the participation by the amalgamated company will not be regarded as estoppel. However, in the present case, the participation in proceedings was by MRPL- which held out itself as MRPL.36. The judgments of this court- in Saraswati Syndicate and Marshall (supra) have indicated that the rights and liabilities of the transferor and transferee companies are determined by the terms of the merger. In Saraswati Syndicate, the point further made is that the corporate existence of the transferor ceases, upon amalgamation.37. In the present case, the terms of the amalgamation have been set out in the order sanctioning it, by the Delhi High Court, by its order dated 10.09.2007. The court, by its order directed the amalgamation of Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Décor Pvt. Ltd. under Section 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 with Mahagun (India) Pvt. Ltd. (MIPL) the transferee Company.40. The facts of the present case are distinctive, as evident from the following sequence:1. The original return of MRPL was filed under Section 139(1) on 30.06.2006.2. The order of amalgamation is dated 11.05.2007 – but made effective from 01.04.2006. It contains a condition – Clause 2 (2. That all the liabilities and duties of the Transferor Companies be transferred without further act or deed to the Transferee Company and accordingly the same shall pursuant to Section 394 (2) of the Companies Act, 1956 be transferred to and become the liabilities and duties of the Transferee Company) - whereby MRPLs liabilities devolved on MIPL.3. The original return of income was not revised even though the assessment proceedings were pending. The last date for filing the revised returns was 31.03.2008, after the amalgamation order.4. A search and seizure proceeding was conducted in respect of the Mahagun group, including the MRPL and other companies:(i) When search and seizure of the Mahagun group took place, no indication was given about the amalgamation.(ii) A statement made on 20.03.2007 by Mr. Amit Jain, MRPLs managing director, during statutory survey proceedings under Section 133A, unearthed discrepancies in the books of account, in relation to amounts of money in MRPLs account. The specific amount admitted was Rs.5.072 crores, in the course of the statement recorded.(iii) The warrant was in the name of MRPL. The directors of MRPL and MIPL made a combined statement under Section 132 of the Act, on 27.08.2008.(iv) A total of Rs. 30 crores cash, which was seized- was surrendered in relation to MRPL and other transferor companies, as well as MIPL, on 27.08.2008 in the course of the admission, when a statement was recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act, by Mr. Amit Jain.5. Upon being issued with a notice to file returns, a return was filed in the name of MRPL on 28.05.2010. Before that, on two dates, i.e., 22/27.07.2010, letters were written on behalf of MRPL, intimating about the amalgamation, but this was for AY 2007-08 (for which separate proceedings had been initiated under Section 153A) and not for AY 2006-07.6. The return specifically suppressed – and did not disclose the amalgamation (with MIPL) – as the response to Query 27(b) was N.A.7. The return – apart from specifically being furnished in the name of MRPL, also contained its PAN number.8. During the assessment proceedings, there was full participation – on behalf of all transferor companies, and MIPL. A special audit was directed (which is possible only after issuing notice under Section 142). Objections to the special audit were filed in respect of portions relatable to MRPL.9. After fully participating in the proceedings which were specifically in respect of the business of the erstwhile MRPL for the year ending 31.03.2006, in the cross-objection before the ITAT, for the first time (in the appeal preferred by the Revenue), an additional ground was urged that the assessment order was a nullity because MRPL was not in existence.10. Assessment order was issued – undoubtedly in relation to MRPL (shown as the assessee, but represented by the transferee company MIPL).11. Appeals were filed to the CIT (and a cross-objection, to ITAT) – by MRPL represented by MIPL.12. At no point in time – the earliest being at the time of search, and subsequently, on receipt of notice, was it plainly stated that MRPL was not in existence, and its business assets and liabilities, taken over by MIPL.13. The counter affidavit filed before this court – (dated 07.11.2020) has been affirmed by Shri Amit Jain S/o Shri P.K. Jain, who- is described in the affidavit as Director of M/S Mahagun Realtors(P) Ltd., R/o….41. In the light of the facts, what is overwhelmingly evident- is that the amalgamation was known to the assessee, even at the stage when the search and seizure operations took place, as well as statements were recorded by the revenue of the directors and managing director of the group. A return was filed, pursuant to notice, which suppressed the fact of amalgamation; on the contrary, the return was of MRPL. Though that entity ceased to be in existence, in law, yet, appeals were filed on its behalf before the CIT, and a cross appeal was filed before ITAT. Even the affidavit before this court is on behalf of the director of MRPL. Furthermore, the assessment order painstakingly attributes specific amounts surrendered by MRPL, and after considering the special auditors report, brings specific amounts to tax, in the search assessment order. That order is no doubt expressed to be of MRPL (as the assessee) - but represented by the transferee, MIPL. All these clearly indicate that the order adopted a particular method of expressing the tax liability. The AO, on the other hand, had the option of making a common order, with MIPL as the assessee, but containing separate parts, relating to the different transferor companies (Mahagun Developers Ltd., Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Universal Advertising Pvt. Ltd., ADR Home Décor Pvt. Ltd.). The mere choice of the AO in issuing a separate order in respect of MRPL, in these circumstances, cannot nullify it. Right from the time it was issued, and at all stages of various proceedings, the parties concerned (i.e., MIPL) treated it to be in respect of the transferee company (MIPL) by virtue of the amalgamation order – and Section 394 (2). Furthermore, it would be anybodys guess, if any refund were due, as to whether MIPL would then say that it is not entitled to it, because the refund order would be issued in favour of a non-existing company (MRPL). Having regard to all these reasons, this court is of the opinion that in the facts of this case, the conduct of the assessee, commencing from the date the search took place, and before all forums, reflects that it consistently held itself out as the assessee. The approach and order of the AO is, in this courts opinion in consonance with the decision in Marshall & Sons (supra), which had held that:an assessment can always be made and is supposed to be made on the Transferee Company taking into account the income of both the Transferor and Transferee Company.42. Before concluding, this Court notes and holds that whether corporate death of an entity upon amalgamation per se invalidates an assessment order ordinarily cannot be determined on a bare application of Section 481 of the Companies Act, 1956 (and its equivalent in the 2013 Act), but would depend on the terms of the amalgamation and the facts of each case.