Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “A”, HYDERABAD
Before: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO & SHRI K.NARASIMHA CHARY
आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1 (for the AY. 2009-10) & Ld. CIT(A)-1, Hyderabad (for the AY. 2014-15), in the case of M/s. Bartronics India Ltd., (“the assessee”), assessee preferred these appeals. For the sake of convenience, we dispose of these appeals by this common order. 2. At the time of hearing, we noticed that assessee preferred (AY.2009-10) with a delay of 297 days. In this connection, Managing Director of the assessee company filed an affidavit, attributing the reason for delay in filing the appeal that the order of the Pr.CIT was received on 05/04/2018 and the same could not be filed in time as the papers had been misplaced by one of office staff and the same could be traced out and could be filed on 28/03/2019 with a delay of 297 days. There is no reason as to why this explanation of the assessee cannot be accepted. As a matter of fact, learned DR fairly concedes to condone the delay. Recording the same, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the matter on merits.
At the outset it is represented by the Learned AR that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) are initiated by admitting the application under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) and moratorium under section 14 of the Code was declared by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) by order dated 02/12/2019. In terms of the moratorium, the institution and continuance of the proceedings against the assessee are prohibited. Learned DR submitted that the state of affairs obtaining as on today are not available and it is not known at what stage the CIRP are pending. Learned AR also submits that such facts are yet to be ascertained. There is no representation for the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Professional.
Be that as it may, 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 (2021) 126 taxmann.com 132 (SC). Under section 13 of the Code, the adjudicating authority after admission of the application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code shall declare a moratorium which shall include the prohibition of the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor in any court of law or tribunal. In Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons (supra), it was held that, (i) 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 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) 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.
A reading of the provisions under section 13 and 14 of the Code along with the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons (supra), clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings is prohibited and when once they 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.
At any rate, for the time being, this appeal cannot be proceeded with during the continuance of the proceedings under the Code. Parties have to work out their remedies before the Adjudicating Authority under the Code. However, depending upon the result of such proceedings before the adjudicating authority in respect of the corporate debtor, appropriate steps if any, may be taken by the appellant/respondent. We, therefore, granting leave to the appellants/respondents in this appeal to seek the restoration of the appeal, if necessitated by the orders in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings, dismiss the appeal in limine. We derive support for the above proposition from the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Mahavir Roads & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT in to 651/Mum/2019 (AYs.2008-09 to 2013-14), dt.08/06/2022.
In the result, both these appeals of assessee are dismissed in limine.
Order pronounced in the open court on this the 31st day of October, 2022.