DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), HYDERABAD vs. KVK ENERGY INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 804/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 November 2022AY 2014-154 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 held that following the Supreme Court's decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons, once a resolution plan is approved, all claims not part of the plan are extinguished. Therefore, the appeals have become infructuous.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. The assessee's Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) were concluded by the NCLT approving a resolution plan.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals filed by the Revenue have become infructuous due to the approval of a resolution plan under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 31

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, HYDERABAD BENCHES “B”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandramouleswara Rao, AR
For Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-DR
Hearing: 22/11/2022

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Challenging the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of M/s. KVK Energy & Infrastructure Private Limited (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2014-15, Revenue preferred these appeals. 2. At the outset it is represented by the learned AR that no adjudication is necessary in this matter, since Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) under the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) in CP (IB) No. 430/07/HDB/2019 on the file of the National Company Law Tribunal, Hyderabad (NCLT) were concluded by the NCLT by order dated 06/08/2021 under section 31 of the Code by approving the resolution plan submitted by GBR International Pte Ltd. whereunder, in terms of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (2021) 126 taxmann.com 132 (SC), the rights, liabilities and disabilities of the parties stood crystallised, as is evident from paragraphs No. 8(C) read with 23 of the order. Copy of the order dated 06/08/2021 is produced and forms part of record. Learned DR concedes this factual and legal position as submitted by the learned AR.

3.

We have considered the issue in the light of the provisions of and the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction (supra). The copy of the order dated 06/08/2021 establishes that the CIRP were concluded and the Adjudicating Authority approved the same. In Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons (supra), it was held that, (i) 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 resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; (ii) (ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the I&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which I&B Code has come into effect; and (iii) consequently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued.

4.

A reading of the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons (supra), clearly shows that when once CIRP reach the logical conclusion with due approval of the resolution plan 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.

5.

It, therefore, follows that in view of the CIRP, as approved by the adjudicating authority, these appeals have become infructuous since the rights, liabilities and disabilities of parties do not survive after CIRP. With this view of the matter, we consider the request of the learned AR that these appeals have become infructuous and the same may be dismissed as infructuous.

6.

In the result, these appeals are dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 22nd November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 31

All 329 judgments and leading authorities on Section 31 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →