KRR INFRA PROJECTS PRIVATE LIMITED,HYDERABAD,HYDERABAD vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX,CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1),HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 290/HYD/2021Status: 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 due to the ongoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) against the assessee and the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the appeals could not be proceeded with. The Tribunal granted leave to the parties to seek restoration of the appeals if necessitated by the outcome of the CIRP.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, M/s. KRR Infra Projects Private Limited, filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, and 2017-18. These appeals were filed with a delay.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeals can be proceeded with during the pendency of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings (CIRP) and the moratorium declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13,Section 14,Section 31,Section 7,Section 9,Section 10

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

For Respondent: Shri Solge Jost Kottaram, CIT-DR

आदेश / ORDER

PER K. NARASIMHA CHARY, JM: Aggrieved by the orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of M/s.KRR Infra Projects Private Ltd., (“the assessee”) for the assessment years 2010-

M/s. KRR Infra Projects Private Ltd., (Batch files)

1.

11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2017-18, the assessee preferred these appeals. For the sake of convenience, we dispose-of these appeals by this common order.

2.

It could be seen from the record that the appeals are filed with a delay of 51 or 52 days as the case may be. Though not the learned DR concede the condonation of delay, the fact remains that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Suo Motu proceedings in the case of Miscellaneous Application No. 665/2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020 has held that in computing the period of limitation for any suit, appeal, application or proceeding, the period from 15 March, 2020 till 02 October, 2021 shall be excluded. We, therefore, proceed to hear and decide the appeal on merits.

3.

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, National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) is seized with the jurisdiction. On a perusal of the order dated 06/08/2021 in CP (IB) No. 430/7/HDB/2020 we noticed that the NCLT admitted the application 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 M/s. KRR Infra Projects Private Ltd., (Batch files)

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.

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

M/s. KRR Infra Projects Private Ltd., (Batch files) 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, 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 13

All 783 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →