9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ny institution of suits or definition of pending suits or proceedings against the creditor, debtor (in the present facts of the case of assessee before us) including the execution of any judgment, decree, or order in any Court of law, Tribunal, Arbitration Resolution Plan/Process has been accepted by the NCLT. At this juncture, we refer to the decision in the case of Ghanshyam Manz Retails Pvt. Ltd. Mishra and Sons Pvt. Ltd. [ 2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT ] wherein has considered a situation wherein, the resolution plan was approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC Code. Hon ble Supreme Court observed that, once the resolution plan was drawn, the claim as provided in the resolution plan stood frozen, and will ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the penalty passed by the Assessing Officer. 2. Since, the issues are common and connected, these appeals are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience. Grounds of appeals taken by the assessee are common in all the three years except the difference of amount. The grounds taken in the appeal being ITA No.4650/Del/2018 for assessment year 2013-14 are under: 1. Ground 1: The learned CIT(A) erred in passing penalty order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 1.1 On the facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-23, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Id. CIT(A) ) has erred in passing an order under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, for the assessment year 2013-14 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pretation of law whereby the conditions, precedent justifying the levy of penalty for any of the limbs specified in section 271(1)(c) of the Act are absent; 2.2 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the additions, which form the basis for levy of penalty, have been made on an estimated basis which process itself being prone to wide variations being dependent on individual mind frames and though processes is not even suggestive or fulfillment of conditions under section 271(1)(c) of the Act to justify levy of penalty; 2.3 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that, the penalty has been levied on the basis of rejection of the books of accounts which action is itself highly unjustified considering various relevant fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al computational provisions of the Act. 3.3 The Id. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that, the Appellant has with the object to putting an end to protracted litigation had opted for settlement before the Customs and Central Excise Department and the same cannot become basis for levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 4. Ground 4: Levy of penalty in disallowance under section 14A of the Act 4.1 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in computing the penalty on this issue even though it is stated in the order that penalty is to be levied only on the income enhanced under CIT(A) order. 4.2 The Id. CIT(A) has erred in levying the penalty on the taxes alleged to be evaded due to disallowance under section 14A of the Act, without appreciating the fa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd perused the material available on record. 6. Learned counsel for the assessee has submitted that since the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) is seized of the proceedings initiated under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and has already approved a resolution plan and granted the moratorium in respect of any other proceedings pending before any authority or tribunal etc., the present appeals cannot be taken for further adjudication. She submitted that the appeals filed by the revenue against the assessee have been dismissed for the above assessment years, by this Tribunal vide order dated 14th June 2024. 7. In the written submission, she has stated that the claims of the Income Tax department were restricted to Rs 67 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... herein, the resolution plan was approved by the adjudicating authority under Section 31(1) of the IBC Code. Hon ble Supreme Court observed that, once the resolution plan was drawn, the claim as provided in the resolution plan stood frozen, and will be binding on the corporate debtor, its employee, its members, creditors, Central Government and any State Government or legal authority, guarantor and other stakeholders. We also note that in the present facts of the case, the resolution plan is yet to be finalized. When, we read the newly inserted provisions of Section 156A of the Act, it is necessary to remand the appeal to the Ld. AO to take necessary steps/action as per Rules. 9. Our above order applies mutatis mutandis to all the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
