TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 921
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 19 days. An application along with an affidavit seeking condonation of delay has been filed by the assessee stating as under: "In this case, the Ld. C.IT (Appeals)-22, Kolkata passed order u/s. 250 of the Act dated 29.03.2010 for A.Y. 2014-15 by partly allowing the appeal of the appellant-petitioner. The said order was received on 20.04.2019. Therefore, the appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal should have been filed within 19.06.2019. However, the appeal has been filed before this Hon'ble Tribunal on 08.07.2019 (6 & 7th holidays), resulting in a short delay of 16 days beyond the prescribed due date for the following reasons. 1) That the said appellate order was handed over to the accountant of the petitioner-company for needful action, who was looking after the company's income-tax matter. He went on leave for a long period and inadvertently omitted to hand over the order and related papers to the authority concerned, which were kept in his drawer under lock. 2) That on his joining the duty on or about the last week of June, 2019, he consulted our Lawyer about future course of action in respect of t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Ld. CIT(A) that the AO has not invoked the provision of section 145(3) is erroneous since the AO has invoked the said provision while passing the assessment order. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A)'s decision in deleting the addition of Rs. 55,22,53,107/- is erroneous since such decision is based on erroneous finding contrary to the facts available on record. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the decision of the LD. CIT(A) may be reversed and the issue may be restored back to the file of AO for examination and verification. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 2.25 crore on account of share capital and premium received by the assessee from M/s Indian Infotech and Software Ltd. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that neither the assessee nor the share subscriber M/s Indian Infotech and Software Ltd. discharged their primary onus in substantiating the creditworthiness of the subscriber company and genuineness of the transaction in terms of sectio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....al before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: II. ITA No. 1640/KOL/2019: "1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law in upholding the addition of Rs. 26 crores u/s. 68 of the Act on account of share application money received from three promoter group companies and two non-promoter group companies solely on the ground of the appellant's alleged failure to establish the genuineness of transaction, although he did not dispute the identity and creditworthiness of those share investors. 2. That, the Ld. CIT(A) further erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 26 crores u/s. 68 of the Act alleging non-appearance of the director of the appellant-company in response to notice u/s. 131 of the Act when the basic documents are already on record to hold that the share application moneys received by the appellant against issuance of shares were genuine and hence mere failure of the director to appear before the A.O. cannot be the basis to make addition w/s.68 of the Act. 3. That, the Ld. revenue authorities without bringing any cogent material that the money belonged to the appellant has invoked....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es were issued and the replies received were considered. The Ld. AO considered the submissions made by the assessee, went through the facts of the case and the judicial pronouncements and the legal issues involved, and thereafter assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.103,28,74,701/- u/s 143(3)/144C/145(3) of the Act. Penalty proceedings under the relevant provisions of the Act were also initiated. Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who, vide the impugned order, partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), both the assessee as well as the revenue have filed the appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee; therefore, the case was heard with the assistance of the Ld. DR. It was submitted by the Ld. DR that in this case, the NCLT has passed an order and the Interim Resolution Professional has also been appointed. A copy of the order of the NCLT was also filed earlier on 23.07.2024 for the CIRP process started on 02.05.2024. A perusal of para 8(b) at page 14 of the order in TP 17/KB/2022 in the matter of Auroma Coke Limited vs. Impex Ferro Tech Pvt. Ltd. order dated 02....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....itor of assessee has filed the petition before the NCLT and as per the assessee's own case for its CIRP as per rule 4 of Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016 no proceedings can continue against the corporate debtor i.e. the assessee after the order of the NCLT. In view of this and drawing further force from the order of co-ordinate bench of Tribunal in the case of Palogix Infrastructure (P.) Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT [2022] 135 taxmann.com 73/193 ITD 329 (Kol. - Trib.) 2021 (10) TMI 1255-ITAT - KOLKATA, dated 27-10-2021 all the appeals before the Tribunal filed by the assessee is to be dismissed as infructuous. [Para 9] ■ It is pertinent to note that as per the provisions of section 14 of the IBC Code institution of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgment, decree or order in any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority shall be prohibited during the moratorium period. [Para 9.1] ■ Further, it is found that section 31 of the IBC relates to approval of the resolution plan and in terms of section 31(1) of the IBC on approval, the resolution plan becomes bin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncluding Direct & Indirect Tax Departments from questioning the resolution plan. Thus, in view of the above, no proceedings can be initiated against the corporate debtor, that is, assessee-company including income tax proceedings and recovery of demand or giving effect of any order. It is well settled now that IBC has an overriding effect on all the acts including Income-tax Act which has been specifically provided under section 178(6) as amended with effect from 1-11-2016. [Para 9.8] ■ A reading of the provisions under sections 13 and 14 of the Code along with the decision in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (supra), clearly shows that once the proceedings have commenced by institution of application under section 7 or 9 or 10 of the Code, the continuance of the pending proceedings is prohibited and when once they reach the logical conclusion with due approval of the resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority under sub-section (1) of section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, gu....