2025 (11) TMI 750

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s challenging the re-assessment proceedings initiated by Respondent No.1 vide Notice dated 26.06.2025 ["Impugned Notice"] under the provision of Section 148A(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["IT Act"] and Order dated 26.06.2025 ["Impugned Order"] under the provision of Section 148A(3) of the IT Act [collectively "Impugned Proceedings"] for the Assessment Year 2019-20 ["relevant A.Y."]. 3. It is contended by the Petitioner that the re-assessment proceedings for the relevant A.Y., initiated against the Petitioner is liable to be quashed and set aside, in view of the Resolution Plan approved by the Ld. National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ["Ld. Adjudicating Authority"] vide Order dated 02.09.2024 ["Plan Approval Order"]. 4. It is f....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income Tax & Anr. [(2025) 255 Company Cases 266 (SC)]. 6. Further, reliance is placed by the Petitioner on various Judgment(s) and Order(s) of this Court in the matter(s) of Murli Industries Ltd. v. Asst. CIT dated 23.12.2021 reported in 2021 SCC Online Bom 6187; Alok Industries Limited v. CIT dated 20.03.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 3481; Principal CIT v. Patanjali Foods Limited dated 17.04.2024 reported in 2024 SCC Online Bom 3997; Uttam Value Steels Ltd. v. ACIT dated 28.08.2024 in Writ Petition (L) No. 9420 of 2022; Ornate Spaces Private Limited v. Dy. CIT dated 21.07.2025 in Writ Petition No.2698 of 2025. 7. We have heard the learned counsel of the respective parties. 8. The short issue to the decided in whether the In....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....8 SCC 511], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated that any demand made subsequent to approval of a Resolution Plan by an Adjudicating Authority, is invalid and once a Resolution Plan is approved by the NCLT, no belated claim can be included therein that was not made earlier. 12. In the facts of the present case, we find that during the subsistence of the CIRP viz-a-viz the Petitioner, the Respondent(s) did not file any claim in relation to escapement of income for the relevant A.Y. or any other assessment year. Therefore, permitting the Respondents to continue with the reassessment proceedings will result in derailing the Resolution Plan and the Resolution Applicant will not be in a position to revive the Petitioner with a clean slate....