M/S KOHINOOR STEEL PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. I.T.O.,WARD-3(3), KOLKATA

Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-17, Kolkata [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 30.09.2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year 2014-15. The impugned order was emanated from

2 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. the order of the ld. Income-tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Kolkata (in brevity the

‘AO’) passed u/s 143(3) of the Act dated 21.03.2015.

days. The assessee submitted the condonation petition, and the reasonis

described that the assessee was ill due to injury of left shoulder, so the delay

was caused for 18 days. The Ld. D.R had not made any objection for condoning

of delay. Accordingly, we condone the delay of eighteen (18) days.

Act against the assessee with an addition amount to Rs. 83,75,000/- u/s 68 of

the Act related to transaction of share capital and share premium which was

taken from different entities against the high premium.

3 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. 5. Aggrieved the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld.

CIT(A) upheld the order of Ld. AO. Being aggrieved, the assessee filed an

appeal before us.

and placed that the assessee has filed the petition before the Hon’ble National

Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and assessee’s case in proceedings under I &

BC, 2016. The Ld. A.R placed the order of NCLT, Kolkata bearing No. CP(IB)

No. 82/KB/2019 date of delivery the order 20.11.2019. The Ld. A.R invited

our attentions to the relevant paragraphs of the orders which are reproduced as

below:

“ORDER i. The application filed by the operational creditor under Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution process against the Corporate Debtor, Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. is hereby admitted. ii. We declare a moratorium and public announcement in accordance with Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC,2016. iii. Moratorium is declared for the purposes referred to in Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The IRP shall cause a public announcement of the initiation of corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and call for the submission of claims under Section 14. The public announcement referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 15 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 shall be made immediately. iv. Moratorium under Section 14 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 prohibits the following: a) The institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; b) Transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein;

4 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. c) Any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); d) The recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. v. The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated, suspended, or interrupted during moratorium period. vi. The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to such transactions as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator. vii. The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of admission till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process. viii. Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be. ix. Necessary public announcement as per Section 15 of the IBC, 2016 may be made. x. Shri Ashok Kumar Sarawagi, IP Registration No. IBBI/IPA-001/IP- P00171/2017-18/10340 email id sarawagiashok@gmail.com is appointed as Interim Resolution Professional for ascertaining the particulars of creditors and convening a Committee of creditors for evolving a resolution plan. xi. The Operational Creditor to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to IRP as advance fee as per Regulation 33(2) of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution process for Corporate Persons) Regulation 2016 which shall be adjusted from final bill. In case further funds are required during Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and, if not provided by Committee of creditors, then IRP/RP can approach this Tribunal for that purpose. xii. The Resolution Professional shall conduct CIRP in time bound manner as per Regulation 40A of IBBI(Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulation, 2016. xiii. Registry is hereby directed under Section 9(5) of the I.B. Code, 2016 to communicate the order to the operational creditor, the corporate Debtor and to the I.R.P by Speed Post as well as through e-mail. 8. List the matter on 31.12.2019 for the filing of the progress report. 9. Certified copy of the order may issued to all the concerned parties, if applied for, upon compliance with all requisite formalities.”

5 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. The ld. AR relied on the case DCIT, Central Circle-3(3), Kolkata vs M/s

Shree Ram Sawmills Pvt. Ltd. IT(SS)A No. 107 to 111/Kol/2018 for AY

2010-11 to 2013-14 date of pronouncement 10.06.2022 the relevant paragraph

is reproduced as below:

“6. From the appeal folder, we find that there are paper books which are placed on record by the erstwhile authorized representative of the assesseecontaining orders passed by Hon’ble NCLT in the assessee’s own case in the proceeding under the I&BC, 2016. From the order of Hon’ble NCLT in Petition No. CP(IB) No. 978/KB/2019 dated 16.03.2020 wherein an application for initiation of corporate insolvency resolution process (CIRP) u/s.7 of the I&BC, 2016 read with Rule 4 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy (Application to Adjudicating Authority) Rules 2016 was moved and an order was passed admitting the same. A moratorium was declared according to which the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor (the assessee) including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority is prohibited.” 7. The Ld. A.R has placed the order of ITAT, Kolkata Bench in the case of

Palogix Infrastructure (P) Ltd. vs. ACIT, Circle-11(2), Kolkata. 2021 (10)

TMI 1255-ITATKOLKATA date of order 27.10.2021. The relevant paragraph

is also reproduced hereinbelow:

“10. In the case of Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P.) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. [2021] 126 taxmann.com 132/166 SCL 237, it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a bare reading of section 31(1) of the Code is enough to establish that once the resolution plan receives the assent of adjudicating authority, it shall be binding on all the respective entities, including corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. The said section 31 was subsequently amended in 2019 to clarify that the term "other stakeholders" include Central Government, State Government, and other local bodies, and this amendment has been held by the Courts as having retrospective effect being clarificatory and declaratory in nature. 11. Keeping in view the legal position emanating from the discussion made above in the light of judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is thus clear that the order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal under section 31 of the

6 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in the Income-tax Act and it shall be binding on all the respective entities including other stakeholders, which include Central Government, State Government and other Local Bodies. As per the said order delivered in the case of the assessee-company affirming the Resolution Plan, all dues under the provisions of the Income-tax Act including taxes, duty, penalties, interest, fines, cesses, unpaid tax deducted at source/tax collected at source, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, whether part of above claim of income tax authorities or not, whether part of tax due diligence finding or not, asserted or unasserted, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or known, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, present or future, in relation to any period prior to the acquisition of control by the resolution applicant over the company pursuant to this plan shall extinguished by virtue of the order of the adjudicating authority and the company should not be liable to pay any amount against such demand. Further, all assessments or other proceedings pending in case of the company, on the date of the order of the adjudicating authority relating to the period prior to that date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, should be deleted and should be considered to be not payable by the company by virtue of the order of the adjudicating authority. Furthermore, all notices proposing to initiate any proceedings against the company in relation to the period prior to the date of adjudicating authority order and pending on that date, shall be considered deleted and should not be proceeded against. Post the order of the adjudicating authority, no reassessment/revision or any other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act should be initiated on the company in relation to period prior to acquisition of control by the resolution applicant over the Company pursuant to this plan shall stand extinguished by virtue of order of the National Company Law Tribunal and the assessee-company should not be liable to pay against such demand. 12. Since the present appeal involving AY 2010-11 relates to the period prior to the acquisition of control by the Resolution Applicant over the company pursuant to this plan, all dues under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 including taxes, duty, penalties, interest fines, cesses, etc. shall stand extinguished by virtue of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal and all proceedings including the appellate proceedings pending on the date of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal including the present proceedings relating to the prior period to the date of order shall stand extinguished and all consequential liabilities, if any, should be deleted and should be considered to be not payable by the Company. In the light of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 12-2-2018 passed in assessee's case, we deem it fit to restore the case for the assessment year under consideration before us to Assessing Officer for taking necessary action in accordance with law. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above.”

7 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. 8. The Ld. D.R fully relied on the order of revenue authorities and not made

any adverse comment against the submission of the assessee.

the record. The operational creditor of assessee has filed the petition before the

NCLT and as per the assessee’s own case for its CRIP as per rule 4 of

Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 no proceedings can continue against the

corporate debtor i.e. the assessee after the order of the NCLT. In view of this

and drawing further force from the order of Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT,

Kolkata in the case of Palogix Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra) all the appeals

before the Tribunal filed by the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Principal Commissioner of

Income-tax v. Subhlabh Steels (P.) Ltd, [2022] 141 taxmann.com 190

(Calcutta)

“4. As against the respondent company an application for liquidation has been filed before the National Company Law Tribunal, Kolkata Bench and by order dated 9th December, 2021 the application filed by Chaitanya Alloys (P.) Ltd., the operational creditor under section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has been admitted and a moratorium as provided under section 14 of the Code has been ordered. There are other directions issued by the NCLT as well. 5. Thus, in the light of the statutory provision and in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pr. CIT v. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. [2019] 107 taxmann.com 481 and also in the light of the overriding provisions of the Code in terms of section 238 of the Act, the revenue cannot pursue the appeal. 6. For such reasons, the appeal is dismissed and the substantial question of law is left open.Consequently, the stay application also stands dismissed.”

8 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd.

9.1. It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 14 of the IBC

Code institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against

the corporate debtor including execution of any judgement, decree or order in

any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority shall be prohibited

during the moratorium period, it is important at this stage to set out Section 14

of the IBC, which reads as follows:

“14. Moratorium.-(1) Subject to provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), on the insolvency commencement date, the Adjudicating Authority shall by order declare moratorium for prohibiting all of the following, namely- (a) the institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority; (b) transferring, encumbering, alienating or disposing of by the corporate debtor any of its assets or any legal right or beneficial interest therein; (c) any action to foreclose, recover or enforce any security interest created by the corporate debtor in respect of its property including any action under the Securitization and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (54 of 2002); (d) the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor where such property is occupied by or in the possession of the corporate debtor. Explanation-For the purposes of this sub-section, it is hereby clarified that notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, a license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right given by the Central Government, State Government, local authority, sectoral regulator or any other authority constituted under any other law for the time being in force, shall not be suspended or terminated on the grounds of insolvency, subject to the condition that there is no default in payment of current dues arising for the use or continuation of the license, permit, registration, quota, concession, clearances or a similar grant or right during the moratorium period. (2) The supply of essential goods or services to the corporate debtor as may be specified shall not be terminated or suspended or interrupted during moratorium period.

9 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd.

(2-A) Where the interim resolution professional or resolution professional, as the case may be, considers the supply of goods or services critical to protect and preserve the value of the corporate debtor and manage the operations of such corporate debtor as a going concern, then the supply of such goods or services shall not be terminated, suspended or interrupted during the period of moratorium, except where such corporate debtor has not paid dues arising from such supply during the moratorium period or in such circumstances as may be specified. (3) The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply to- (a) such transactions, agreements or other arrangements as may be notified by the Central Government in consultation with any financial sector regulator or any other authority; (b) a surety in a contract of guarantee to a corporate debtor. (4) The order of moratorium shall have effect from the date of such order till the completion of the corporate insolvency resolution process: Provided that where at any time during the corporate insolvency resolution process period, if the Adjudicating Authority approves the resolution plan under sub-section (1) of Section 31 or passes an order for liquidation of corporate debtor under Section 33, the moratorium shall cease to have effect from the date of such approval or liquidation order, as the case may be.” 9.2. We further find that Section 31 of the IBC relates to approval of the

resolution plan and in terms of Section 31(1) of the IBC on approval, the

resolution plan becomes binding on corporate debtor and its employees,

members, creditors including the Central Government, any State Government or

any local authority to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under

any law for the time being in force. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter

of Ghanashyam Mishra ((2021) 9 SCC 657) has considered the scope of

Section 31 (1) of the IBC and has held that once the resolution plan is

sanctioned under Section 31(1) of the IBC, the claims provided in the plan will

10 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. stand frozen and all such claims which are not part of the plan will stand

extinguished. Hon’ble Supreme Court in this judgment has held that:

“102.1. 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. 102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the l&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect. 102.3. 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.” 9.3. In the matter of Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India

Limited,(2020) 8 SCC 531, Hon’ble Supreme Court has expressed that a

successful resolution application cannot be faced with undecided claim after the

resolution plan is accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up,

leading to the uncertainty of amounts payable by a prospective resolution

applicant. In this judgment, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that:

“106. Following this judgment in V. Ramakrishnan case, it is difficult to accept Shri Rohatgi's argument that that part of the resolution plan which states that the claims of the guarantor on account of subrogation shall be extinguished, cannot be applied to the guarantees furnished by the erstwhile Directors of the corporate debtor. So far as the present case is concerned, we hasten to add that we are saying nothing which may affect the pending

11 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. litigation on account of invocation of these guarantees. However, NCLATjudgment being contrary to Section 31(1) of the Code and this Court's judgment in V. Ramakrishnan case, is set aside. 107. For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with “undecided” claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who would successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count.” 9.4. Similar issue came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of

M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Limited vs. Union of India and Others wherein

by the judgment dated 17th of February 2022 passed in Civil Appeal No.

447-448 of 2013, after taking note of the judgment of Ghanashyam Mishra

(supra), the Hon’ble Court held that:

“Admittedly, the claim in respect of the demand which is the subject matter of the present proceedings was not lodged by the respondent no. 2 after public announcements were issued under Sections 13 and 15 of the IBC. /4s such, on the date on which the Resolution Plan was , approved by the learned NCLT, all claims stood frozen, and no claim, which is not a part of the Resolution Plan, would survive. In that view of the matter, the appeals deserve to be allowed only on this ground. It is held that the claim of the respondent, which is not part ofthe Resolution Plan, does not survive. The amount deposited by the appellant at the time of admission of appeals along with interest accrued thereon is directed to be refunded to the appellant.’’ 9.5. Thus, the law is well settled that on the approval of the resolution plan in

terms of Section 31 of the IBC, the dues including the statutory dues of the

12 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. Government or local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, gets

extinguished and no proceedings in respect thereof for a period prior to the date

of approval under Section 31 would continue. The decision of the Hon’ble

Calcutta HighCourt in West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company

Limited vs. Sri Vasavi Industries Limited [[2022 (7) TMI 580 -

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT]] makes it clear that any claim not made during

the course of CIRP and before approval of resolution plan shall automatically be

extinguished and the corporate debtor is deemed to start its operations with a

clean slate after the resolution plan is approved.

9.6. It will also be relevant to refer to Section 238 of the IBC:

“238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws.-The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law.’’

9.7. It could thus be seen that the provisions of the IBC shall have effect,

notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for

the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such

law. It has been consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the IBC is

a complete Code in itself and in view of the provisions of Section 238 of the

IBC, the provisions of the IBC would prevail notwithstanding anything

inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force. A

reference in this respect could be placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in

13 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. the cases of Innoventive Industries Limited v. ICICI Bank and Another

(2018) 1 SCC 407, Principal Commissioner of Income Tax v. Monnet Ispat

and Energy Limited (2018) 18 SCC 786 and Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons

Private Limited through the Authorised Signatory v. Edelweiss Asset

Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director and Others (2021)

9 SCC 657.

9.8. In view of the above, we are of the view that as per section 31 of the

Code, resolution plan as and when approved by the Adjudicating Authority shall

be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors,

guarantors, and other stakeholders involved in the resolution plan. Thus, this

will prevent State authorities and Regulatory bodies including Direct & Indirect

Tax Departments from questioning the resolution plan. Thus, in view of the

above, no proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor, that is,

assessee company including income tax proceedings and recovery of demand or

giving effect of any order. It is well settled now that IBC has an overriding

effect on all the acts including Income Tax Act which has been specifically

provided u/s 178(6) of the I.T. Act as amended w.e.f. 01.11.2016.

9.9. 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

14 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. 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 continuation of the proceedings under the

Code.

9.10. 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. We, therefore, granting, leave to the

appellant to seek the restoration of the appeal, if necessitated by the orders in

the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Proceedings.

9.11. The issue of limitation in filing fresh appeal, if need be, has already been

dealt with in Hon’ble Supreme Court in NDMC-v-Minosha (India) Ltd.

reported in 2022 8 SCC 384 wherein on consideration of Section 60(6) of the

Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it was held that the entire moratorium

15 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. period will be excluded in computing limitation in respect of proceedings at the

hand of a corporate debtor, the relevant paragraphs of which have been

reproduced below:

"34. In other words, notwithstanding the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, the law giver has thought it fit to provide that in respect of a corporate debtor if there has been an order of moratorium made in Part II, the period during which such moratorium was in place shall be excluded. "For which an order of moratorium" cannot bear the interpretation which is sought to be placed by the appellant. The interpretation placed by the appellant is clearly against the plain meaning of the words which have been used. We have already undertaken the task of understanding the purport of the Code and the context in which Section 60(6) has been put in place. This Court cannot possibly sit in judgment over the wisdom of the law giver. The period of limitation is provided under the Limitation Act. The law giver has contemplated that when a moratorium has been put in place, the said period must be excluded. We cannot overlook also the employment of words "any suit or application". This is apart, no doubt, from the words "by a corporate debtor". Interpreting the statute in the manner which the appellant seeks would result in our denying the benefit of extending the period of limitation to the corporate debtor, a result, which we think, would not be warranted by the clear words used in the statute.”

However, the Ld. AO is at liberty to make an application for re-institution of

this appeal if resolution process endsin I&BC, 2016.

Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as infructuous.

16 I.T.A. No.27/Kol/2020 Assessment Years: 2012-13 M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No. 27/Kol/2020 is

dismissed.

Order is pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2024

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Manish Borad / डॉ मनीष बोरड) (Anikesh Banerjee /अ�नकेश बनज�) Accountant Member/लेखा सद�य Judicial Member/�या�यक सद�य Dated: 19th February, 2024 SM, Sr. PS

Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- M/s Kohinoor Steel Pvt. Ltd., 235/2A, A.J.C. Bose Road, 3rd Floor, Kolkata-700028 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-3(3), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)- 17, Kolkata 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)