TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1186
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and 2014-15. These appeals were held by the Tribunal as non-maintainable as the Form No. 36, which is prescribed for filing appeal to the ITAT, was not amended by the Revenue despite repeated opportunity to incorporate the name of resolution professional, who was controlling the affairs of the assessee company during relevant period. 2. At the very outset, it deserves to be noted that the Registry had pointed out a delay of 22 day in filing the Miscellaneous Application. However, upon verification of the record, we find that the order of the Tribunal was received in the office of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) on 15.09.2022, whereas the present Miscellaneous Application was filed on 23.11.2023. Thus, the filing is within....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....preme Court in Sundaresh Bhatt (supra), wherein it is held that while the Revenue may proceed to assess or determine the tax liability of the corporate debtor, no recovery of such dues can be effected during the subsistence of moratorium under sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC. The Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the claim of the Revenue, like that of any other creditor, is required to be lodged before the Resolution Professional or Liquidator, as the case may be, to be dealt with in accordance with the mechanism prescribed under section 53 of the IBC. 4.1 The Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in Doshion Veolia Water Solution Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after an exhaustive analysis of the statutory scheme and judicial precedents including S.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he legislative history and the scheme of the Indian Companies Act, particularly the language of Section 446, read as a whole, it appears to us that the expression "other legal proceeding" in sub-section (1) and the expression "legal proceeding" in sub-section (2) convey the same sense and the proceedings in both the sub-sections must be such as can appropriately be dealt with by the winding up court. The Income Tax Act is, in our opinion, a complete code and in is particularly so with respect to the assessment and re- assessment of income tax with which alone we are concerned in the present case. The fact that after the amount of tax payable by an assessee has been determined or quantified its realization from a company in liquidation is go....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f considered expedient. We are not impressed by this argument. The language of Section 446 must be so construed as to eliminate such startling consequences as investing the winding up court with the powers of an Income Tax Officer conferred en him by the income Tax Act, because in our view the legislature could not have intended such a result. 8. The argument that the proceedings for assessment or re-assessment of a company which is being wound up can only be started of continued with the leave of the liquidation court is also, on the scheme both of the Act and of the Income Tax Act, unacceptable. We have not been shown any principle on which the liquidation court should be vested with the power to stop assessment proceedings for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....moratorium. We are of the opinion that the above ratio squarely applies to the interplay between the IBC and the Customs Act in this context. 45. From the above discussion, we hold that the respondent could only initiate assessment or reassessment of the duties and other levies. They cannot transgress such boundary and proceed to initiate recovery in violation of Sections 14 or 33(5) of the IBC. The interim Resolution Professional, Resolution Professional or the liquidator, as the case may be, has an obligation to ensure that assessment is legal and he has been provided with sufficient power to question any assessment, if he finds the same to be excessive. 54. On the basis of the above discussions following are our conclus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....provisions of IBC 2016 would prevail over the Income Tax Act. However, Income Tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess/determine the quantum of Income Tax dues but have no authority to initiate recovery of such does at its own during the period of moratorium in violation of Section 14 or 33(5) of the IBC as the case may be. The Income Tax Authorities are like any other creditor, may stake their claim before liquidator in the statutory limitation period provided under the IBC. Such claims can be considered in accordance with the waterfall mechanism provided u/s. 53 of IBC. As in the case of civil litigation, an appeal is treated as the continuation of a suit, the outcome of these appeals would also result in the determination of r....