INCOME TAX OFFICER 15(3)(4), MUMBAI vs. M/S.SUNSHAKTI OIL REFINERY PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6006/MUM/2017Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 July 2022AY 2012-134 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the appeal filed by the AO. This was due to the assessee being under corporate insolvency and a moratorium period declared by the NCLT, which prohibits the continuation of any suit against the debtor.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and sundry creditors. The AO argued that the CIT(A) erred in accepting confirmations and other documents as sufficient proof of genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed by the AO can continue against an assessee undergoing corporate insolvency and subject to a moratorium. The validity of additions made under Section 68 for unsecured loans and sundry creditors was also raised.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 14 (IBC Code)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI

For Respondent: Shri Hoshang B. Irani, DR
Hearing: 05.07.2022Pronounced: 05.07.2022
1.

This appeal is filed by the learned Assessing Officer against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, Mumbai [CIT(A)] dated 9th June, 2017.

2.

The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:–

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in directing the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 5,52,69,300/- made under section 68 of the Income tax act, holding

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of unsecured loans of Rs. 5,52,69,300/-made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, thereby ignoring the financial inability of the creditors to invest such huge amount of money and also ignoring the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Major Metels Ltd vs. UOI and Ors(2012) 251 CTR (Bom), wherein the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has upheld the findings of the settlement commission in respect of the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, where the nature and source of receipt could not be satisfactory explained by the assessee.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,62,986/- on account of sundry creditors, ignoring that the assessee had merely filed confirmations, whereas the genuineness of transactions were questionable.

5. The appellant prays that the order of CIT(A), Mumbai on the above directions be set aside and that of the assessing officer be restored.

6.

The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any of the aforesaid grounds or add a new grounds of appeal, which may be necessary at any time before or at the time of hearing of appeal."

3.

At the time of hearing, it has come to our notice that assessee is undergoing corporate insolvency process and order has been passed by the NCLT on 1st October, 2019 holding the assessee as corporate debtor and declaring moratorium period. The Provisions of Section 14 of the IBC code prohibits the continuation of any suit against the debtor. In view of this, the appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer deserves to be dismissed. Hence, dismissed. However, we give liberty to the learned Assessing Officer to file the appeal, if so desire on completion of the moratorium period. The learned

4.

In the Result, appeal filed by the learned Assessing Officer is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →