TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 1224
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d by learned advocate Ms. Shailee Joshi for the petitioner and learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta for the respondents. 2. Having regard to the controversy arising in the present petition which is in narrow compass, with the consent of learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for final disposal today. 3. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta waives service of notice of rule for and on behalf of the respondents. 4. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 3.11.2023 passed by respondent No. 1 - CBDT rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under section 119(2)(b) of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tion professional appointed by the NCLT. Pursuant to which, the resolution petitioner carried out the audit and made arrangement for filing of income tax return. The income tax return for the Assessment Year 2019-20 came to be belatedly filed under section 139(4) of the Act by the new management on 30.11.2020 since the resolution professional had not filed the same on time. Similarly, income tax return for the Assessment Year 2021- 22 also came to be filed belatedly on 15.03.2022 setting off brought forward business losses. 5.4 Thereafter, return for Assessment Year 2011-22 was selected for scrutiny and a Show-Cause cum draft assessment order was passed by the respondent authority disallowing brought forward business losses on the ground....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e copy of the said order. 5.8 Despite of hearing the application and providing further details as sought by the respondent No. 1 Board, the respondent No. 1 Board having not complied with the directions given by this Court in Special Civil Application No.757 of 2023, the petitioner preferred the contempt petition. However, vide order dated 03.11.2023, respondent No. 1 Board rejected the application preferred by the petitioner seeking condonation of delay in filing return of income for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20. Hence, the present petition. 6. Learned Senior Advocate Mr. M.R. Bhatt appearing for the petitioner has contended that the respondent authority has failed to consider vital aspect of the matter, more particularly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion to condonation of delay and the petitioner prays for allowing the present petition. 6.3 Lastly, it is argued that the respondent Board has wrongly interpreted the provisions of Section 31 of the IBC by observing that the Income Tax Department has not made claim with regard to the current application of the petitioner, as the petitioner has purportedly suffered losses for the Assessment Years 2018-19 and 2019-20 and therefore, the case laws cited by the petitioner has no relevance with regard to condonation proceedings under the Act. 7. Learned Senior Standing Counsel Ms. Maithili Mehta appearing for the respondents has supported the findings given by the respondent Board. It is further argued that Section 31 of the IBC 2016 deals ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s Rewa Coal Field Limited, reported in AIR 1962 SC 361 wherein it is held that everyday of delay needs to be explained with cogent evidences and thus argued to reject the present petition. 8. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties and perused the impugned order as well as annexures appended with the petition, two issues are required to be decided i.e. (i) whether the respondent authority has correctly applied the term "genuine hardship" in the facts of the case ? and (ii) whether the resolution plan approved by the NCLT, Ahmedabad provides for any set off or carry forward of the losses of the erstwhile company ? 9. As far as the issue with regard to genuine hardship as covered by various judgments ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 8. xxx xxx xxx 9. The Central Board of Direct Taxes to exempt the Corporate Debtor from the applicable provisions of Section 79 read with Section 2(18) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 upon change in shareholding of the Corporate Debtor pursuant to the Resolution Plan and allow carry forward and set off of brought forward losses of the Corporate Debtor as on the Effective Date in this regard, an opportunity to be provided by Resolution Professional to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat to submit his views and objections, if any, to enable NCLT to pass suitable orders for permitting carry forward of depreciation and losses as per the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961." 10. Thus, in view of the aforesaid facts and circums....