2025 (6) TMI 560 - AT - Income Tax

Resolution professional accepts unexplained credits and investments additions under sections 68, 69, 69C without evidence

Vijaygroup Housing Pvt Ltd. Versus National Faceless Appeal Centre CIT (A), Mumbai

The ITAT Mumbai dismissed the assessee's appeal challenging additions under sections 68, 69, and 69(C) for unexplained credits, investments, and ... Unexplained credits u/s. 68, unexplained expenditure u/s. 69(C), unexplained investment u/s. 69 and addition as income from other sources respectively - HELD THAT:- CIT(A) has examined the submissions with respect to the various additions made and has dismissed the appeal of assessee and based his decision on sound legal principles and settled legal precedents. It is to be noticed that the resolution professional on behalf of the assessee has also submitted in writing before us that he has no material/evidence/submissions to be made on behalf of the assessee with respect to the additions to the total income challenged in this appeal. Thus, the assessee has totally failed to bring any material against the additions made by AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A). For the above reasons, we find no legal infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference by this Tribunal. Income Tax Department jurisdiction to initiate and continue assessment proceedings against a corporate debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process - The income tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the income tax due but have no authority for immediate recovery of such due at its own during the period of moratorium in violation of Section 14 or 33(5) of IBC, 2016. We respectfully, agree with the coordinate bench that the income tax authorities are like any other creditor, may stake their claim before the liquidator in the statutory limitation period provided under the IBC 2016. The Revenue authorities are within their powers against the assessee who is undergoing CIRP under the IBC, 2016, for adjudicating the matter with respect to determination of tax only. For these reasons, the ground no. 5, which is the legal ground is also rejected. 1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDEREDThe core legal questions considered by the Tribunal in these appeals are:(a) Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 68, 69, and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, relating to unexplained credits, unexplained investments, and unexplained expenditures, respectively, were justified in the absence of documentary evidence and explanation from the assesseeRs.(b) Whether the Income Tax Department had jurisdiction to initiate and continue assessment proceedings against a corporate debtor undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016, particularly for periods prior to the approval of the resolution planRs.(c) Whether the assessee was entitled to set off current year business losses and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation against the additions made by the AORs.(d) Whether the procedural requirement of natural justice was violated by the AO in making additions based on statements and evidence not confronted to the assesseeRs.(e) Whether the alleged mistake in the intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding business income and set off of losses, was a valid ground for appeal before the TribunalRs.2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSISIssue (a): Justification of additions under sections 68, 69, and 69C of the Income Tax ActRelevant legal framework and precedents: Section 68 deals with unexplained cash credits, requiring the assessee to prove the identity, creditworthiness, and genuineness of the transaction. Section 69 pertains to unexplained investments, where the assessee must explain the nature and source of investments. Section 69C addresses unexplained expenditure. The burden lies on the assessee to provide satisfactory evidence to rebut the presumption of unexplained income or expenditure.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal noted that the assessee failed to produce any documentary evidence or material before the AO and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] to substantiate the transactions involving unsecured loans, interest payments, brokerage, immovable property purchase, and rental income discrepancies. The Resolution Professional (RP) representing the assessee stated that no information or documents were available due to non-cooperation by the ex-promoters.Key evidence and findings: The AO relied on information received from investigation units and statements of intermediaries involved in accommodation entries. The assessee did not provide any supporting documents or explanations to establish the genuineness of transactions amounting to Rs. 1.53 crore (unsecured loan), Rs. 3.06 lakh (interest and brokerage), Rs. 2.08 crore (immovable property purchase), and Rs. 12 lakh (rental income difference).Application of law to facts: The Tribunal found that the assessee was unable to discharge its burden under sections 68, 69, and 69C. The AO's additions were therefore justified and confirmed by the CIT(A). The Tribunal upheld these additions as the assessee failed to provide any material evidence or explanation, and the RP explicitly stated the absence of such information.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee argued that the RP had no access to relevant documents due to the CIRP and ex-promoters' non-cooperation. However, the Tribunal held that the absence of evidence cannot be a ground to disallow the additions, especially when the burden is on the assessee to prove the transactions' genuineness.Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the appeal on these grounds, confirming the additions under sections 68, 69, and 69C.Issue (b): Jurisdiction of Income Tax Authorities during CIRP under IBC, 2016Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 14 of the IBC imposes a moratorium on recovery proceedings during CIRP. Section 238 of the IBC contains a non-obstante clause overriding inconsistent provisions of other laws. Section 178(6) of the Income Tax Act was amended to exclude the IBC from its effect, recognizing IBC's overriding effect. The Supreme Court has held that while assessment and adjudication can continue, recovery proceedings during moratorium are barred. The Tribunal relied on a coordinate bench decision and authoritative case law, including the Supreme Court's ruling in Sundaresh Bhatt v. CBIC.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Tribunal agreed with the coordinate bench that the Income Tax Authorities have limited jurisdiction during CIRP to assess and determine tax dues but cannot initiate recovery proceedings in violation of the moratorium under sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC. The Income Tax Department is treated as a creditor who can stake claims before the liquidator within the statutory limitation period.Key evidence and findings: The Tribunal examined the statutory provisions and judicial precedents, including the Companies Act provisions on winding up and the interplay with the IBC.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal held that the assessment proceedings initiated by the Income Tax Department against the corporate debtor undergoing CIRP were valid insofar as determination of tax liability is concerned. However, enforcement or recovery of dues during the moratorium is prohibited.Treatment of competing arguments: The assessee contended that all proceedings relating to pre-CIRP periods should be stayed. The Revenue argued that assessment proceedings are distinct from recovery and are permissible. The Tribunal sided with the Revenue on assessment but acknowledged the moratorium on recovery.Conclusions: The Tribunal dismissed the legal ground raised by the assessee, confirming the validity of assessment proceedings during CIRP but clarifying the limitation on recovery actions.Issue (c): Set off of current year business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciationRelevant legal framework: The Income Tax Act allows set off of business losses and unabsorbed depreciation against income under specified conditions.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) directed the AO to verify and allow set off of current year business loss and brought forward unabsorbed depreciation as per law.Application of law to facts: The Tribunal noted that this issue was partly allowed by the CIT(A) and did not find grounds to interfere.Conclusions: The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s direction on set off.Issue (d): Alleged violation of natural justice due to non-provision of evidence/statementsRelevant legal framework: Principles of natural justice require that an assessee be given an opportunity to confront evidence against it.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) observed that the assessee did not raise this objection before the AO, who was the appropriate forum. The Tribunal agreed that failure to raise the objection at the proper stage disentitled the assessee from raising it on appeal.Conclusions: The Tribunal rejected the contention of violation of natural justice.Issue (e): Mistake in intimation under section 143(1) and its challengeRelevant legal framework: Section 154 of the Income Tax Act provides for rectification of mistakes apparent from record.Court's interpretation and reasoning: The CIT(A) held that challenge to intimation under section 143(1) in an appeal against assessment order under section 147 is not maintainable, and the assessee was advised to seek rectification under section 154.Conclusions: The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A) and rejected the ground as not entertainable.3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS'It is incumbent upon the assessee to satisfy the revenue authority by proving the identity, credit worthiness of the parties and the genuineness of the transaction. In the absence of any documentary evidence or material having been submitted, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was rightly confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).''The Income Tax Authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess and determine the quantum of income tax dues during the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, but have no authority to initiate recovery of such dues in violation of the moratorium imposed under Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC.''The Income Tax Department, like any other creditor, may stake its claim before the liquidator within the statutory limitation period provided under the IBC.''Failure to raise an objection regarding non-provision of evidence before the Assessing Officer disentitles the assessee from raising the same before appellate authorities.''Challenge to intimation under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act is not maintainable in an appeal against assessment order under section 147; rectification under section 154 is the appropriate remedy.'The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld the additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A), while clarifying the limited jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities during CIRP and emphasizing the need for the assessee to discharge its evidentiary burden under the Income Tax Act.