The draft assessment order for AY 2012-13 was void ab initio as it was passed in the name of a non-existent company, the assessee having amalgamated pursuant to a High Court-approved scheme, which was duly intimated to the AO on 12.02.2016.

The Revenue contended that the assessment proceedings were valid since the DRP directions and the final assessment order were passed in the name of the amalgamated (successor) entity.

The ITAT held that if, on the date of passing the draft assessment order, the entity had ceased to exist, the draft order is non est in law, as there can be no assumption of jurisdiction against a non-existent person.

The assessee submitted that issuance of an invalid draft assessment order vitiates the entire assessment proceedings under section 144C, as the jurisdiction of the DRP and the final order are consequential.

The Revenue argued that the defect, if any, was a procedural irregularity curable by passing the final order in the correct name.

The ITAT observed that such a defect goes to the root of jurisdiction and is not a mere procedural irregularity; absence of a valid draft order invalidates the subsequent proceedings.

The assessee relied on judicial precedents holding that assessments framed on non-existent entities are void.

The Revenue sought to sustain the assessment on the basis of substance over form.

Relying on coordinate bench decisions in FedEx Express Transportation, Siemens Ltd., and Boeing India, the ITAT quashed the entire assessment proceedings.