Interest charges under sections 234A, 234B, 234C quashed post-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process approval

The HC quashed interest charges under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act imposed post-Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The court held that once a resolution plan is approved under section 31(1) of IBC, all claims not included in the plan stand extinguished and frozen. The Assessing Officer could only verify tax inclusion in the resolution plan but improperly charged additional interest totaling over Rs. 10 crores without notice. Following SC precedents in Ghanashyam Mishra and Ruchi Soya cases, the court ruled no claims can be made against parties for amounts not part of the approved resolution plan. The demand notice and assessment order were quashed, with refund directed.

---

---

Issues:
Challenge to demand raised by ACIT under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C of the Income Tax Act for Assessment Year 2010-11 based on ITAT order.

Detailed Analysis:

I. Factual Matrix of the Case:
The petitioner challenged a demand raised by the ACIT for Assessment Year 2010-11 following an ITAT order. The petitioner filed returns, faced insolvency proceedings, and had a Resolution Plan approved by NCLT. The ITAT allowed the appeal, questioning the inclusion of income tax liabilities in the Resolution Plan.

II. Submissions of Opposite Parties:
The Opposite Party argued that interest under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C was added as per IT Act provisions. They contended that the demand raised was legal and just, considering the petitioner's awareness of tax implications. The impugned order was passed after providing an opportunity to the petitioner.

III. Court's Reasoning and Analysis:
The Court noted that the Resolution Plan was approved by NCLT, freezing claims not part of the plan. Citing IBC provisions and Supreme Court precedents, the Court held that the frozen amount could not be claimed against the petitioner. The interest charges under sections 234A, 234B, and 234C were deemed unsustainable. Consequently, the order giving effect to the ITAT decision and the Notice of Demand were quashed, directing a refund to the petitioner.

The judgment highlighted the legal intricacies of insolvency proceedings, tax liabilities, and the binding nature of Resolution Plans under IBC. The Court's analysis emphasized the statutory provisions and Supreme Court rulings to determine the validity of the demand raised by the ACIT. Ultimately, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering a refund and quashing the impugned order and Notice of Demand.

---