9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (4) TMI 1448X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... unities to the assessee to furnish the requisite details. ii) Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in admitting the additional evidence merely relying on the decisions without examining their applicability on the facts of the case of the assessee. iii) Whether, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition u/s. 68 of the I.T. Act of Rs. 3,41,90,000/- out of the addition made of Rs. 4,61,90,000/-. iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. v) It is, therefore prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. vi) The appellant prays for leave, to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 3. The Assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- "1. Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 4,00,000/- in respect of loan received from Labhuben Ashvindbhai Patel by presuming it as unexplained due to non submission of details of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t listed therein. The Counsel for the assessee also referred to Pages 12-15 of the Paper Book and pointed out that in the list of claim of creditors admitted in the Resolution Plan, it did not include any claim of the Income Tax Department. Accordingly, no demand is liable to be paid by the assessee and all income tax demands against the assessee stands extinguished. 5. We have heard the rival the contentions and perused the material on record. 6. On going through the facts of the instant case and the contents of the order dated 06.12.2023 passed under Section 30(6) r.w.s. 31 of IBC, 2016 by Hon'ble NCLT, Ahmedabad, we observe that evidently, Income Tax Department has not made any claim against the assessee before NCLT in respect of it's outstanding demand. This factual position is not in dispute. Therefore, the limited issue for consideration before us is that once the Department has admittedly not made any specific claim before NCLT in respect of the outstanding demand for the impugned year under consideration, then in such circumstance, whether the appeal of the Department is liable to be dismissed and no outstanding demand would survive against the assessee. 7. In the case G ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Code. 6. In the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. (supra), relied upon by the petitioner/assessee, it was held by the Supreme Court as under: "94. We have no hesitation to say that the words "other stakeholders" would squarely cover the Central Government, any State Government or any local authorities. The legislature noticing that on account of obvious omission certain tax authorities were not abiding by the mandate of the I&B Code and continuing with the proceedings, has brought out the 2019 Amendment so as to cure the said mischief. We therefore hold that the 2019 Amendment is declaratory and clarificatory in nature and therefore retrospective in operation. ** ** ** 102.1 That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the adjudicating authority, all such claims, which are not a part of res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssued by the respondents/revenue much subsequent to the public announcement dated 30-9-2019 of commencement of CIRP under section 13 of the Code; vide order dated 21-2-2022, the Tribunal approved the final Resolution Plan and that order was communicated by the petitioner/assessee to the respondents/revenue, calling upon the latter to withdraw the earlier notices, but to no avail. 9. In nutshell, the Resolution Plans qua the petitioners/assessee's having been approved by the National Company Law Tribunal on 5-11-2019 (in WP(C) 10528/2022) and on 21-2-2022 (in WP(C) 10628/2022), the tax claims pertaining to the Assessment Year 2017-18 (in WP(C) 10528/2022) and Assessment Year 2014-15 (in WP(C) 10628/2022) stood extinguished. 10. The argument on behalf of respondents/revenue that being the State exchequer, it cannot be bound by the Resolution Process provisions of the Code has been recorded only to be rejected in view of the above quoted extract from the judgment in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. (supra). 11. In view of the aforesaid, both these writ petitions are allowed and consequently, the notices and orders impugned in the same are set aside. 10. In the case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
