Assessee is Bharti Airtel Limited (Successor to Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd.)
Engaged in providing wireless telecommunication services and operated as a GSM network carrier.
The primary issue was that the assessment order for AYs 2017–18 and 2018–19 was passed in the name of Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd., despite its merger with Bharti Airtel Limited with effect from 14.05.2018. The merger was duly approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and the Assessing Officer (AO) was informed multiple times. Yet, the final assessment order, draft order, and TPO order were issued in the name of the non-existent entity.
Assessee’s Contentions | Revenue’s Contentions |
|---|---|
The merger with Bharti Airtel Ltd. was sanctioned by NCLT on 08.03.2018 and effective from 14.05.2018. The AO was duly informed via a letter dated 12.06.2018. | The Revenue relied on the existing assessment orders as they were issued and did not provide any detailed explanation or justification for issuing orders in the name of the merged (non-existent) entity. |
Despite frequent reminders, all assessment-related notices and orders were issued in the name of Telenor India Communications Pvt. Ltd., which was legally non-existent at the time. | The Revenue did not dispute the fact that the merger was approved and the AO was informed, but did not consider this a valid reason to invalidate the assessment orders. |
Highlighted that the TPO’s order even acknowledged the merger, yet proceeded in the wrong entity’s name. | The Revenue did not address or respond to the assessee’s argument that issuing orders in the name of a non-existent entity makes the assessment void. |
Cited the judgments in Vedanta Ltd. and Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. to assert that such an assessment order passed in the name of a non-existent entity is void ab initio and cannot be cured under Section 292B. | Essentially, the Revenue took a procedural stance, relying on the assessment documents as issued, without substantiating why the procedural lapse should not affect the validity of the assessment. |
ITAT’s Judgement:
The ITAT found merit in the assessee’s claim, observing that despite the AO’s awareness and multiple intimation letters, the assessment was continued in the name of a non-existent entity. Relying on the Supreme Court's ruling in Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. and the Delhi High Court's decision in Vedanta Ltd., the Tribunal emphasized that such assessments suffer from jurisdictional defects and cannot be cured under Section 292B. Consequently, it held that the final assessment order dated 27.05.2022 was legally unsustainable and quashed it in its entirety.
The Delhi ITAT ruled that issuing assessment orders in the name of a non-existent entity is not valid and quashed the assessment order as legally unsustainable.
