SIVA INDUSTRIES AND HOLDINGS LIMITED,CHENNAI vs. ACIT CORP CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITTPA 11/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 July 2024AY 2010-1113 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeal is time-barred by 3300 days. The assessee sought condonation of this delay, citing the pursuit of alternate remedies for 2017 days and an effective delay of 1283 days. The assessee's primary contention for condonation was to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice and significant hardship. However, the Tribunal found the delay to be abnormal and noted that the assessee was aware of the final assessment order passed on 30.01.2015 from the outset. The Tribunal concluded that there were no sufficient and reasonable causes explained for the substantial delay. Therefore, the Tribunal declined to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal in limine as unadmitted. The Tribunal did not decide on the merits of the assessment order itself, as the appeal was not admitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. (merged with Siva Ventures Ltd.), is in appeal against the final assessment order dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle 6(2), Chennai, pursuant to directions from the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP). The assessment year is 2010-11. The appeal was filed with a delay of 3300 days. The assessee's return for AY 2010-11 was filed on 28.09.2009, admitting a total income of Rs.10,19,09,88,790/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny, and notices under section 143(2) were issued. A merger with Siva Industries and Holdings Limited (Siva Ventures Limited) was confirmed by the Madras High Court. The Transfer Pricing Officer suggested additions of Rs.28,68,73,143/-. A draft assessment order proposed additions of Rs.11,08,65,95,132/-. The DRP upheld the addition of Rs.59,84,01,199/- under section 14A read with Rule 8D for expenses attributable to exempt income. The final assessment order was passed accordingly.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is maintainable given a delay of 3300 days, and if the delay is to be condoned, considering the assessee's pursuit of alternate remedies and the potential for gross miscarriage of justice and significant hardship. Assessee's arguments: The assessee contends that the delay should be condoned to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice and significant hardship. They state that out of the total delay of 3300 days, 2017 days were spent pursuing alternate remedies, leaving an effective delay of 1283 days for which condonation is sought. The assessee also highlights a complex procedural history involving multiple appeals, a merger, and the pursuit of various legal avenues, including before the NCLT and Supreme Court, which contributed to the delay. Revenue's arguments: The revenue does not appear to have filed any specific arguments regarding the condonation of delay in the provided text. The Tribunal's decision focuses on the assessee's submission and the nature of the delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 143(2),Section 129,Section 92CA(3),Section 143(3),Section 14A,Section 115JB

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA

Hearing: 11.07.2024Pronounced: 11.07.2024

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘डी’ �यायपीठ,चे�ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI �ी महावीर �सह, उपा�य� एवं �ी एस.आर. रघुनाथा, लेखा सद�य के सम� BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./IT(TP)A No.: 11/CHNY/2024 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd., The Assistant Commissioner (Siva Ventures Ltd., merged with Siva Vs. of Income Tax, Industries and Holdings Ltd.,) Corporate Circle 6(2), Mena Kampala Arcade, 3rd Floor, Chennai. A Block, B Wing, 113 – 114, Sir Theyagaraya Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017. PAN: AAACS 4460M (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri B. Ramakrishnan, FCA ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri A. Sasikumar, CIT सुनवाई क� तारीख/Date of Hearing : 11.07.2024 घोषणा क� तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.07.2024 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Circle -6(2), Chennai dated 30.01.2015 passed in pursuant to the directions of the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Chennai dated 27.11.2014.

- 2 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024

2.

At the outset, we noted that this appeal is time barred by 3300 days and the assessee has filed condonation of delay petition stating various reasons, including dismissal of assessee's petition earlier also in M.Ps. The assessee now letter dated 04.06.2024 has narrated entire facts in its petition as under: "1.The Petitioner is engaged in the business of exporting agro products, shipping and logistics, realty and hospitality and education/e-learning businesses. The Petitioner on 28.09.2009 had filed its Return of Income (ROI) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 u/s 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") admitting a total income of Rs.10,19,09,88,790/-.

2.Subsequently, on 29.08.2011, the Petitioner's case was selected for limited scrutiny and Notice u/s 143(2) was issued to the Petitioner. The Petitioner had merged with M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited (Siva Ventures Limited (SVL) Merged with Siva Industries and Holdings Limited) (hereinafter referred to as "SVL") and the same was confirmed vide order dated 22.08.2013 passed by the Hon'ble Madras High Court in Comp. Petn. Nos.84 to 93 of 2013. Pursuant to the merger another Notice dated 08.10.2013 u/s 143(2) r.w.s 129 of the Act was served on the Petitioner. On 29.01.2014 the Transfer Pricing Officer passed orders u/s 92 CA (3) of the Act, suggesting the addition of Rs.28,68,73,143/- towards interest short charged and uncharged guarantee commission fee to the SVL.

3.The Petitioner submits that on 28.02.2014, a Draft Assessment Order u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the Act was passed by the JCIT making significant additions to the income of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.11,08,65,95,132/- In response, the Petitioner filed an application dated 08.04.2014 before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in Form 35A objecting to the addition u/s 92CA and Disallowance u/s 14A proposed in the Draft Assessment Order dated 28.02.2014. It is pertinent to note that in the said application M/s. Siva Ventures Ltd ( SVL) had specifically stated that they have merged with M/s. Siva Industries and Holdings Limited. The Petitioner submits that on 27.11.2014, the DRP held that the action of the Assessing Officer of

- 3 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 determining the expenses attributable for earning exempt income at Rs.59,84,01,199/- u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D, is as per law and justified.

4.Thereafter, the AO, based on the directions of the DRP vide Order dated 27.11.2014, had passed a Final Assessment Order dated 30.01.2015 by assessing the income at Rs.11,08,66,95, 132/- for SVL.

5.The Petitioner aggrieved by the Final order approached the Hon'ble Income. Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) on 06.04.2015 in ITA No. 687 of 2015.

6.The Petitioner submits that parallelly on 24.03.2014, an Assessment Order was passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92CA(3) of the IT Act, 1961 in the name of Mis. Siva Industries and Holding Limited. In response to this the Petitioner Filed application before the Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in Form 35A objecting the addition u/s 92CA and Disallowance u/s 14A proposed in the Draft Assessment Order dated 24.03.2014. On 12.12.2014, the DRP held that the Assessing Officer's action of determining the expenses attributable for earning exempt income at Rs.65,68,07,825/- u/s. 14A r.w.r.8D is as per law and justified. Therefore, the proposals for disallowance of expenses by the Assessing Officer u/s. I4A r.w.r.8D, is justified and confirmed.

7.The Petitioner submits that the Deputy commissioner of Income Tax based on the directions of the DRP order dated 12.12.2014 passed a assessment order dated 06.02.2015 assessing a total income at Rs.5,97,54,415/- as per 115JB for Siva Industries and Holdings Ltd. The Petitioner aggrieved by the Assessment order dated 06.02.2015 approached the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) and filed an appeal on 20.04.2015 in ITA No. 884 of 2015.

8.The Petitioner submits that at this juncture, the Assessment orders dated 06.02.2015 and 30.01.2015 were for different entities, being Siva Industries and Holdings Limited and SVL respectively. These were then appealed vide ITA no. 884/2015 and 687/2015 respectively. However, the appeal filed by the Petitioner in IT A/687 /Mds/2015 was dismissed for being a repetitive appeal vide the common order of this Hon'ble tribunal dated 07.10.2016. 9.The Petitioner submits that, aggrieved by order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 07.10.2016, the Petitioner preferred a Miscellaneous Petition in MP No.44/Mds/2017 dated 09.03.2017 for rectification of the order of the

- 4 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 tribunal in ITA No.687 of 2015 for the assessment year 2010-11. On 26.04.2017 this Hon'ble tribunal dismissed the Miscellaneous Petition in MP No.44/Mds/2017 holding that:

"4. Admittedly, the assessee came in appeal before this Tribunal along with the assessee's appeal in /TA No.884/Mds./2015 for assessment year 2010-11. The Appeal in ITA No 884/Mds/2015 is the appeal filed by the assessee against assessment order 06.02.2015 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 92CA(3) of the Act, consequent to direction of DRP passed uls. 144C(5) of the Act dated 12. 12.2014 for A.Y 2010-11. Similarly, the assessee filed another appeal in !TA No. 687/Mds/2015 for assessment year 2010-11 against the same direction of DRP vide same order dated 12.12.2014 and the assessee attached the DRP order in the name of M/s.Siva Industries & Holdings Ltd., and enclosed a draft assessment order dated 30.01.2015 in the name of Siva Venture Ltd., also enclosed one more draft assessment order Siva Venture Ltd., dated 28.02.2014 and the order of TPO in the name of Siva Venture Ltd. dated 29.01.2014. Since there was a confusion regarding the impugned order against which the assessee is in appeal before us for assessment year 2010-11 as the assessee has already in appeal In IT A No. 884/Mds/2015, this appeal in /TA No.687/Mds/2015 was dismissed as a repeated appeal.

5.

Ld.A.R before us is not able to clarify, even at the time of argument of Miscellaneous Petition with regard to how it was mentioned as draft assessment order dated 30.01.2015, which was passed uls.143(3) r. w.s 144C(13) r.w.s. 92CA of the Act. Hence, we are not in a position to recall the Order of Tribunal in ITA No.687/Mds/2015 Accordingly, this Miscellaneous Petition filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

10.Therefore, the Petitioner submits that, due to the mistake and misrepresentation of the then legal representative of the Petitioner, regarding the nature of these appeals, two concurrent orders of this tribunal dated 07.10.2016 and 26.04.2017 were passed dismissing ITA No 687/2015 on the grounds of being a repetitive appeal.

11.The Petitioner submits that on 24.07.2017 the Petitioner approached the Hon'ble Madras High in TCA Nos. 777 to 779 of 2017 court challenging the common order of the ITAT dated 07.10.2016 in ITA No.1039/Mds/2014; 2108/Mds/2012; 687/Mds/2015 & 884/Mds/2015 only with respect to ITA

- 5 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 No.1039/Mds/2014; 2108/Mds/2012 & 884/Mds/2015. However, the Petitioner had not challenged the order in ITA No.687 of 2015 as the Petitioner presumed the same to be a repetitive appeal.

12.The Petitioner submits that shortly thereafter, the Petitioner went into a financial crisis and IDBI Bank filed an application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the Hon'ble NCLT, Chennai on 13.03.2019 and the Hon'ble NCL T admitted6 the application on 04.07.2019 and Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process ('CIRP') of the petitioner was initiated by the IDBI Bank.

13.During the course of the CIRP, a resolution plan was submitted by Royal Partners Investments Funds Limited that failed to meet the required percentage of the votes as envisaged under section 30 of the Code by receiving only 60.90% as against the requirement of 66% of the vote in the 12th meeting of the Committee of Creditors ("COC"). Thus, liquidation was imminent and the Resolution Professional ("RP") filed an Application IA/837/IB/2020 in IBA/453/2019 dated 08.05.2020 under section 33 of the Code seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

14.The Petitioner submits that, the applicant/promoter Late Mr.Vallal RCK preferred an application bearing no. IA/647/IB/2020 in IBA/453/2019 dated 31.08.2020 before the Hon'ble NCLT, seeking consideration of 'One Time Settlement Offer' ("Settlement Application"). After considering the OTS, the RP convened the 14th COC meeting. Late Shri Vallal RCK submitted a detailed Settlement Proposal and subsequently an addendum to the Settlement Plan was also submitted by the Petitioner. Consequently, the COC voted upon the Settlement Plan and withdrawal of the section 7 application filed by the IDBI Bank in the 16th COC meeting on 18.01.2021 and the proposal of Late Mr. Vallal RCK received 70.63% vote.

15.However, on 08.03.2021 one of the Financial Creditors- International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. ("IARCL"), having a voting share of 23.60%, wrote to the RP stating that it had reconsidered its vote and approved the Resolution and accordingly requested the RP to pray for appropriate directions from the NCL T for validation of the recasted vote or seek fresh voting on the OTS. Pursuant to this communication the RP preferred an application MA/12(CHE)/2021 before the NCL T seeking necessary direction.

- 6 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 16.The Petitioner submits that the NCLT vide order dated 29.03.2021 directed the RP to hold a COC meeting and seek the vote of COC within 10 working days. The 17th COC meeting was convened pursuant to the order of the NCLT to vote on the withdrawal application filed by the IDBI Bank Ltd, with respect to the Settlement Proposal of the Appellant. The Proposal by Late Shri Vallal RCK was passed by the COC on 06.04.2021 with 94.23% votes under section 12A of the Code.

17.The Petitioner submits that the RP preferred an application under section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulation before the NCL T for withdrawal of IBA/453/2019 admitted under Section 7 of the Code. However, the NCL T erroneously passed an order on 12.08.2021 dismissing the withdrawal application filed by the RP under Section 12A of the Code r/w Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulation through common order in MA/43/CHE/2021 and IA/647/IB/2020 and IA/586/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/2019 and passed an order of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in IA/837/2020.

18.The Petitioner submits that an appeal was filed by Late Shri Vallal RCK on 15.08.2021 before the Hon'ble NCLAT against the order of the NCLT dated 12.08.2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble NCLAT on 28.01.2022 upholding the dismissal of the 12A application of the Liquidator and ordered for Liquidation of the Petitioner, in terms of Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Aggrieved by the order of the NCLAT, Late Shri Vallal RCK appealed against it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1811-1812 of 2022.

19.

The Petitioner in said appeal had stated that the Application for withdrawal of an admitted insolvency resolution process filed by the Petitioner under section 12A of the Code had secured 94.23% votes as against the 90% requirement enumerated in the section. Further this Application would be severely impeded with the ongoing Income tax liabilities of the Petitioner company and for this very reason it is important that the Hon'ble Supreme Court Condone this.

20.The petitioner submits that the Hon'ble supreme Court vide order dated 03.06.2022 approved the Application for withdrawal under section 12A of the Code and allowed the appeals. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in said order quashed and set aside the orders passed by the NCLT and NCLAT dated 12.08.2021 and 28.01.2022.

- 7 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024

21.The Petitioner submits that meanwhile, the Hon'ble Madras High Court Vide order dated 24.11.2020 in TCA Nos. 777 to 779 of 2017 against ITA Nos. 1039/Mds/2014; 2108/Mds/2012; & 884/Mds/2015 set aside the order of this Hon'ble Tribunal dated 07.10.2016 and restored the appeals fresh on the file of this Hon'ble Tribunal to decide the appeals de nova afresh.

22.The Petitioner submits that the Respondent issued a demand notice for AY 2010-11 under section 281 of the Act. It was only when the current Legal representatives of the Petitioner perused the documents was it found out that the case under ITA No.687/CHNY/2015 was wrongly dismissed as repetitive appeal and it was in fact not repetitive but was a separate appeal. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal. 23.The Petitioner submits that however, on 12.08.2022 this Hon'ble Tribunal passed an order partly allowing the appeal filed by the Petitioner in ITA No 687/ CHNY/2015 holding that:

"10. In these appeals filed by the assessee as well as Revenue, only issue involved is transfer pricing adjustment made on account of corporate guarantee extended by the assessee to its AE and said issue has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal vide its order in /TA No. 1039/Mds/2014, 2108/Mds/2012, 687 & 884/Mds/2015 and 1074/Mds/2014 & C.O.No.52/Mds/2014, 706/Mds/2015 dated 07.10.2016 and both the parties have accepted decision rendered by the Tribunal on the issue of transfer pricing adjustment. However, the assessee has challenged order of the Tribunal dated 07.10.2016 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras only on the issue of disallowances u/s.14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and the Hon'ble High Court vide its order dated 24.11.2020 set aside order of the Tribunal for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010- 11 only on the issue of disallowance uls.14A of the Income Tax Act,1961. However, while listing appeals for disposal in pursuant to direction of the Hon'ble High Court, the Registry has listed appeals filed by the Revenue for very same assessment years, even though issues involved in those appeals are reached finality. Therefore, we are of the considered view that these appeals filed by the Revenue I the assessee and cross objection filed by the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11 does not require any adjudication at this Juncture and thus, these appeals and cross

- 8 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 objection are disposed off without giving any finding on the issue as raised by both the parties. 11. In the result, appeals filed by the Revenue I the assessee and cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. 12. The first issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.2 to 2.2 of the Revenue appeal is disallowance made uls.14A r.w.r 80 of the I.T.Rules, 1962. We find that an identical issue has been decided by us in ITA Nos.2108/Chny/2012, 1039/Chny/2014 & 687/Chny/2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The reasons given by us in preceding paragraph No.6 to 9 in /TA Nos. 2108/Chny/2012, 1039/Chny/2014 & 687/Chny/2015 for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11 shall mutatis mutandis shall apply to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we direct the Assessing Officer to restrict disallowances made uls. 14A r. w. Rule 80 of the Income Tax Rules,1962, to the extent of exempt income earned by the assessee amounting to Rs.6,02,87,668/- and delete balance amount of disallowances made u/s. 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961."

24.

The Petitioner consequently filed a Tax Case Appeal in TCA Sr. No.140514 of 2022 along with CMP 22149 of 2022 before Hon'ble High Court of Madras praying for the Hon'ble Court to condone the delay of 2139 days in filing the tax case appeal against the order in ITA No. 687 /Mds/2015 dated 07.10.2016 for the AY 2010-11.

25.The Petitioner submits that the Hon'ble Madras High court vide order dated 03.08.2023 dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay holding that the Petitioner was negligent and that there was a lack of "sufficient cause" for the delay of 2139 days in filing the Tax Case Appeal.

26.The Petitioner submits that left with no other alternative remedy the Petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for condonation of delay of 2139 days. The Hon'ble Supreme Court upon hearing the parties concluded that there was a huge delay which is not condonable and hence there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition.

- 9 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 27.The Petitioner submits that the Petitioner had filed an appeal against the above Appellate Order before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 29.02.2024 with a delay of 1283 days.

28.The Petitioner submits that it is of utmost importance that this Hon'ble Tribunal grants an early hearing and condones the delay to prevent the gross miscarriage of justice in the case of the Petitioner.

29.The Petitioner wishes to place on record that significant hardship would be caused if early hearing is not granted and the condonation of delay is not accepted. The application under section 12A of the Code read with Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulation for withdrawing the Application would suffer gross perversity if this early hearing is not granted and delay petition is not allowed.

30.The Settlement Plan approved by the Supreme Court on 03.06.2022 as per which the 1st tranche of Settlement amount had also been paid to the financial creditors of the petitioner would fail which would grossly affect the Petitioner and the financial institutions which gave loans to the Petitioner if this early hearing petition is not granted and delay petition is not allowed thereby negating all the hard work done by the Promoters of the company. It is for this reason that Petitioner urges this Hon'ble Tribunal to grant an early hearing and the matter may be heard on its merits in the interest of justice." 3. The chronology of events is culled out from the above facts as under:- Dates Events 28.02.2014 Draft Assessment Order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92 CA(3) of the Act in the case of M/s. Siva Ventures Limited. An application was filed before the DRP in Form 35A objecting addition u/s 92CA and Disallowance u/s 14A proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. 24.03.2014 Draft Assessment Order passed by the AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s 92 CA(3) of the Act in the case of appellant (Siva Industries & Holdings Limited). An application was filed before the DRP in Form 35A objecting addition u/s 92CA and Disallowance u/s 14A proposed in the Draft Assessment Order. 27.11.2014 Directions issued by the DRP in F No.DRP/CHE/26/2014-15 in the case of Siva Ventures Limited

- 10 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 12.12.2014 Directions issued by the DRP in F No.DRP/CHE/54/2014-15 in the case of appellant (Siva Industries & Holdings Limited) 30.01.2015 Final Assessment Order was passed by the AO in the case of Siva Ventures Limited 06.02.2015 Final Assessment Order was passed by the AO in the case of appellant (Siva Industries & Holdings Limited) 06.04.2015 Being aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, Siva Ventures Limited had filed an appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 687 of 2015. 16.04.2015 Being aggrieved by the Final Assessment Order, the appellant had filed an appeal before the ITAT in ITA No. 884 of 2015. 07.10.2016 Order of ITAT in ITA No.687/Mds/2015 was passed treating the appeal be a repetitive appeal. 07.10.2016 Order of ITAT in ITA No.884/Mds/2015 was passed by partly allowing the issues in appeal. 09.03.2017 The appellant had challenged the Order in ITA No.687 of 2015, dismissing the appeal as repetitive before the ITAT vide MP No.44/Mds/2017 26.04.2017 The Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed, the deputy legal manager of SIHL who was an authorised legal officer of the appellant was under a bona fide mistaken view of law that given the dismissal orders of the ITA no.687/Mds/2015 was indeed repetitive as two concurrent orders of the tribunal were passed labelling the aforementioned ITA repetitive. 24.07.2017 The appellant had approached the Hon'ble Madras High court challenging the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal in ITA No.1039/Mds/2014; 2108/Mds/2012; & 884/Mds/2015. However, the order in ITA No.687 of 2015 was not challenged on the grounds that the appellant presumed the same to be a repetitive appeal. 05.07.2019 The appellant went into a financial crisis and a Corporate Insolvency resolution process was initiated by the IDBI Bank under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 ("Code") in IBA/453/2019 against the appellant. The Resolution Plan submitted by Royal Partners Investment Fund Limited failed to meet the required percentage of the votes as envisaged under section 30 of the Code by receiving only 60.90% of the vote in the 12th meeting of the Committee of Creditors ("COC"). 08.05.2020 Liquidation was imminent and the Resolution Professional filed an Application IA/837/1B/2020 in IBA/453/2019 under section 33 of the Code seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.Professional filed an Application IA/837/B/2020 in IBAJ453/2019 under section 33 of the Code seeking liquidation of the Corporate Debtor.

- 11 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 31.08.2020 The applicant/promoter - Late Shri Vallal RCK preferred an application bearing no. IA/647/B/2020 in IBA/453/2019 before the NCLT, seeking consideration of 'One Time Settlement Offer' ("Settlement Application"). 24.11.2020 The Hon'ble Madras High Court Vide order in TCA Nos. 777 to 779 of 2017 against ITA Nos. 1039/Mds/2014; 2108/Mds/2012; &884/Mds/2015 set aside the order of the ITAT and remanded the case back to the file of the ITAT In the meantime, the Members of the COC after considering the OTS, the RP convened the 14th COC meeting. Late Shri Vallal RCK submitted a detailed Settlement Proposal and subsequently an 'addendum' to the Settlement Plan was also submitted by the appellant. Consequently, the COC voted upon the Settlement Plan and withdrawal of the section 7 application filed by the IDBI Bank in the 16th COC meeting. 29.03.2021 The NCLT vide order dated 29.03.2021 directed the RP to hold a COC meeting and seek the vote of COC within 10 working days. The 17th COC meeting was convened pursuant to the order of the NCLT to vote on the withdrawal application filed by the IDBI Bank Ltd, with respect to the Settlement Proposal of the Appellant. The Proposal by Late Shri Vallal RCK was passed by the COC with 94.23% votes under section 12A of the Code. 06.04.2021 One of the Financial Creditors International Assets Reconstruction Co. Ltd. ("IARCL"), having a voting share of 23.60%, wrote to the RP stating that it had reconsidered its vote and approved the Resolution and accordingly requested to the RP to pray for appropriate directions from the NCLT for validation of the recasted vote or seek fresh voting on the OTS. Pursuant to this communication the RP preferred an application MA/12(CHE)/2021 before the Hon'ble Adjudicating Authority seeking necessary direction. 12.08.2021 The NCLT vide order dismissed the withdrawal application filed by the RP under Section 12A of the Code r/w Regulation 30A of the CIRP Regulation through common order in MAJ43/CHE/2021 and IA/647/IB/2020 and IA/586/CHE/2021 in IBA/453/2019 and passed an order of liquidation of the Corporate Debtor in IA/837/2020. 28.01.2022 Shri Late Vallal RCK preferred an Appeal before the Hon'ble NCLAT against the order dated 12.08.2021 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble NCLAT upholding the dismissal of the 12A application of the Liquidator and ordered for Liquidation of the appellant, in terms of Section 33(1)(a) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. 03.06.2022 Aggrieved by the order of the NCLAT, Shri Vallal RCK appealed against it before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This Hon'ble Court

- 12 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 allowed the appeals and the orders of the NCLT and NCLAT were set aside. 12.08.2022 The ITAT passed the order consequent to the directions of the Hon'ble High Court and in the said order the ITAT had stated that the ITA No. 687/CHNY/2015 is dismissed though the same was no subject matter of remand by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras. 13.12.2022 The appellant filed a TCA in TCA Sr. No.140514 of 2022 along with CMP 22149 of 2022 to condone the delay in filing the TCA before Hon'ble High court of Madras. 03.08.2023 The High Court, vide order dated 03.08.2023 dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to condone the delay in filing the Tax Case Appeal. 30.10.2023 The appellant filed a Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 11.12.2023 The Hon'ble supreme court concluded that there was a huge delay which is not condonable and hence there is no merit in the Special Leave Petition. 12.04.2024 The appeal in IT(TP)A No.11/CHNY/2024 was filed against the Final Assessment Order dt 30.01.2015 along with a petition for condonation of delay, explaining the total delay of 3300 days, with an effective delay of 1283 days after excluding the period during which an alternate remedy was pursued.

4.

From the above chronology of events, it is clear that now the assessee is challenging the final assessment order passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 94CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the relevant assessment year 2010-11 vide order dated 30.01.2015 with a condonation petition explaining the total delay of 3300 days. The assessee contended that out of 3300 days, the assessee was pursuing under alternate remedies for 2017 days and for the balance period of 1283 days are the effective delay for which condonation is being asked for. The assessee in its petition only submitted that the

- 13 - IT(TP)A No.11/Chny/2024 delay be condoned to prevent the gross miscarriage of justice in the case of the petitioner and significant hardship would be caused to the petitioner if delay is not condoned. Apart from this, the assessee has not contended anything. We noted that the delay is abnormal of 3300 days and assessee was very much aware from the beginning that the final assessment order was passed by the AO in the case of assessee and that also on 30.01.2015. As there is no reason explaining delay before us for the huge delay, what to talk of sufficient and reasonable cause, hence we decline to condone of delay. The appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine as un- admitted.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th July, 2024 at Chennai.

Sd/- Sd/- (महावीर �सह ) (एस. आर. रघुनाथा) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) उपा�य� /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated, the 11th July, 2024 RSR आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� /CIT, Chennai 4. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड� फाईल/GF.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →