DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. SCORODITE STAINLESS INDIA P LTD, MUMBAI

Present for: Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed, A.R. Shri Sumit Mantri, A.R. Revenue by : Shri Satyapal Kumar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 21 . 09 . 2022 Date of Pronouncement : 31 . 10 . 2022 O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: Since common questions of law and facts have been raised in both these inter-connected appeals, the same are being disposed of by way of composite order to avoid repetition of discussion.

2009-10 & 2011-12 respectively passed by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Jodhpur [hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)] on the grounds inter-alia that :- for A.Y. 2009-10 “1. Whether the CIT (A) was right in deleting addition on account of bogus purchase by ignoring the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. NK Proteins Ltd., Vs. Dy.CIT and No.769 of 2017 dtd. 16.01.2017 (SC)? 2. Whether the CIT{A) was right in deleting addition by ignoring the fact that the assesssee has not produced any documentary evidences in respect of movement of goods purchased? 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the notices under section 133(6) issued t the parties from whom alleged bills obtained were returned undelivered and the assessee has also failed to produce the parties before the AO and hence the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the said purchases leading to conclusion that the assessee company was beneficiary in respect of bogus purchases? 4. Whether the CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition by ignoring the fact that one of the alleged bogus party i.e. M/s.Alliance Steels Inds. has admitted to have provided bogus bills at the commission and also accepted to have not made any sale/purchase of goods?”

ITA No.803/M/2018 for A.Y. 2011-12

2. Whether the CIT(A) was right in deleting addition by ignoring the fact that the assesssee has not produced any documentary evidences in respect of movement of goods purchased?

3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the fact that the notices under section 133(6) issued the parties from whom alleged bills obtained were returned undelivered and the assessee has also failed & 803/M/2018 3 M/s. Scordite Stainless India Pvt. Ltd.

to produce the parties before the AO and hence the assessee failed to establish the genuineness of the said purchases leading to conclusion that the assessee company was beneficiary in respect of bogus purchases?

I. That this Bench as a result of this prohibits: a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law. tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; & 803/M/2018 4 M/s. Scordite Stainless India Pvt. Ltd. b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Kinancii.il Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act. 2002; d) the recovers of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied b\ or in possession of the corporate debtor. II. That the supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor, if continuing, shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during the moratorium period.

III. Thai the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 14 of I&B Code shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator.

IV. That the order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of this Order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process or until this Bench approves the resolution plan under sub- section (1) of section 31 of I&B Code or passes an order for the liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 33 of I&B Code, as the case may be. V. That the public announcement of the corporate insolvency resolution process shall be made immediately as specified under section 13 of I&B Code. VI. That this Bench at this moment appoints Mr. Chandra Prakash Jain, a registered insolvency resolution professional having Registration Number [IBBI/IPA-001/IP-P00147/2017-18/10311] as Interim Resolution Professional to carry out the functions as mentioned under I&B Code, fee payable to IRP/RP shall comply with the IBBI Regulations/Circulars/Directions issued in this regard.”

approval of committee of creditors, hence both the appeals are liable to be dismissed being not maintainable at this stage.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.10.2022.