ASTER PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(2), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1732/HYD/2019Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 August 2022AY 2012-135 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 a moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code prohibits the continuation of proceedings against the corporate debtor. Therefore, the appeals cannot be proceeded with during the pendency of CIRP.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed appeals against orders passed by the AO consequent to directions of the DRP. Both parties represented that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) are pending against the assessee, and the NCLAT has jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether pending income tax appeals can be continued when the assessee is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 153A,Section 144C,Section 7,Section 14,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 “A”, HYDERABAD

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

Hearing: 08/08/2022

आदेश / ORDER PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the order(s) passed by the Learned Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad (“Ld. AO”) in

1.

M/s. Aster Private Ltd., (Batch files) the case of M/s. Aster Private Ltd., (“the assessee”) for the AYs.2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A r.w.s. 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”), consequent to the directions of Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel, Bengaluru (“DRP”), assessee filed these appeals.

2.

At the outset it is represented by both the sides that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) are pending against the assessee and as of now, Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is seized with the jurisdiction.

3.

On a perusal of the order dated 19/11/2019 in CP(IB) NO. 199/7/HDB/2019 we noticed that the NCLT admitted a petition by the financial creditor under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (“the Code”) and declared moratorium in terms of section 14 of the Code prohibiting the institution and continuance of proceedings against the assessee with all other attendant consequences.

4.

We have considered the issue in the light of the provisions of the Code 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

M/s. Aster Private Ltd., (Batch files) 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.

5.

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 M/s. Aster Private Ltd., (Batch files)

other stakeholders. At any rate, for the time being, these appeals cannot be proceeded with during the continuance of the proceedings 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 all these appeals to seek the restoration of the appeals, if necessitated by the orders in the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings, dismiss the appeals 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.

6.

In the result, all these appeals are dismissed in limine.

Order pronounced in the open court on this the 8th day of August, 2022

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →