TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (4) TMI 1442
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
...., Kolkata Bench ("Adjudicating Authority") in in IA (IBC) No. 335/KB/2022 in Company Petition (IB) No. 662/KB/2018. SMRC Logistic and Warehouse Service Provider, who is an unregistered partnership firm of the Corporate Debtor, is the Respondent No.1 herein. QWIK Supply Chain Private Limited., who is the lessee of the Corporate Debtor, is Respondent No. 2, herein. 2. The Appellant contended that upon commencement of the CIRP on 17.07.2019, the Appellant, having been appointed as Resolution Professional, conducted a thorough inspection of the books and records of the Corporate Debtor and ascertained that the Corporate Debtor was owner of the open area measuring 5,27,653 square feet and covered area measuring 75,933 square feet situated at Mouza-Bighati, J.L. No. 14, China More J.L. No. 92 and Palara J.L. No. 15 under P.S. Bhadreshwar and Singur, Baidyabati, N.H-6, District-Hooghly, West Bengal-712124. The Appellant submitted that the said land had been made the subject matter of an unregistered "Lease Deed" dated 03.04.2018 executed between the Corporate Debtor as lessor and Fine Tech Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (now Qwik Supply Chain Pvt. Ltd., Respondent No. 2) as lessee for a p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... share of Rs. 6,79,429/- per month. 8. The Appellant contended that immediately upon receipt of the said sum, the Respondent No. 1 addressed multiple emails to the Appellant and the lessee demanding its own independent share, thereby demonstrating that even the Respondent No. 1 was fully conscious that the payment of Rs. 1,64,91,599/- had been received by the Corporate Debtor exclusively towards its own dues. The Appellant contended that despite the clear mandate of the Adjudicating Authority order, the lessee, Respondent No. 2, by its letter dated 12.03.2020, represented to the Appellant that the payment being made to the Corporate Debtor included the share of the Respondent No. 1, which was factually incorrect, contrary to the lease deed and contrary to the specific relief granted in C.A.(IB) No. 1769/KB/2019. 9. The Appellant submitted that in response to the aforesaid communications, the Appellant addressed a detailed reply dated 22.05.2020 to the Respondent No. 1, clarifying that Rs. 1,64,91,599/- was received solely as the Corporate Debtor's share and the Corporate Debtor had not received any amount on account of the Respondent No. 1's share, and that the lessee still r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ituted attorney of the Corporate Debtor in terms of the lease deed dated 03.04.2018 and the parties duly acted upon the covenants contained in lease deed and had been regularly paying the due share of lease rent to the Respondent No. 1 and to the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the ratio of the rent receivable by the Respondent No. 1 to the tune of Rs. 6,79,429/- per month is an admitted fact and the Respondent No. 1 is entitled to receive the said amount. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that the proportionate share of the rent had been paid to the Corporate Debtor and to the Respondent No. 1, which fact is evident from the statement of Form-26AS reflecting the amount of TDS deducted by Respondent No. 2 against the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 1 contended that, apart from deduction of taxes at source, Respondent No. 2 had also been regularly paying GST at 18%, which position is fully supported by the GST certificate. The Respondent No. 1 submitted that Respondent No. 2 failed to pay the lease rent in favour of the Respondent No. 1 and the Corporate Debtor from January 2019 to March 2020. Relying upon the lease deed, the Appellant had surreptitiously iss....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 22. The Respondent No. 2 contended that in terms of Clause 5.1 of the lease deed, the Respondent No. 2 was required to pay a monthly rent of Rs. 31,73,314/, which was all inclusive, meaning that all taxes, charges, levies, etc., stood included in the said amount, and the said rent was payable to the Corporate Debtor for Rs. 24,93,855/- and Rs. 6,79,429/- to the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that the monthly lease rental payable to the Corporate Debtor was later mutually revised on account of reduction in the usage of the area of the demised premises and was thereafter payable in the ratio of Rs. 22,13,855/- to the Corporate Debtor; and Rs. 6,79,429/- to the Respondent No. 1. 23. The Respondent No. 2 contended that in terms of Clause 6.1 of the lease deed, the Respondent No. 2 had paid an interest-free refundable security deposit to the lessor i.e. of Rs. 95,19,942/- to the Corporate Debtor i.e. Rs. 74,81,655/-and Rs. 20,38,287/- to the Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 submitted that, further in terms of Clause 6.1 of the lease deed, upon expiry of the term of the lease or upon its earlier determination, the Respondent No. 2 was entitled to the refund o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sage, the Respondent No. 2 was liable to pay to the Corporate Debtor only the reduced rental of Rs. 22,13,855/-per month (subject to tax deduction at source) and not Rs. 26,94,985/- per month as wrongly alleged by the Appellant. 26. The Respondent No. 2 contended that the Respondent No. 2 is not aware of the reply dated 22.05.2020 referred to by the Appellant. However, the said reply did not take into account the payment already made by the Respondent No. 2 as per the ratio stipulated in the lease deed and further did not consider the adjustment of the security deposit. The Respondent No. 2 denied any liability to pay a further sum of Rs. 1,06,81,966/- to the Corporate Debtor. The Respondent No. 2 reiterated that the amount paid to the Appellant already includes the share of the Respondent No. 1. There is no outstanding amount payable to the Corporate Debtor or the Respondent No. 1. 27. Concluding its arguments, the Respondent No. 2 requested this Appellate Tribunal to dismiss the appeal. Findings 28. We note that through an unregistered Lease Deed dated 3rd April, 2018, the Corporate Debtor leased the said premise for a period of 3 years at a monthly lease rental of Rs....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....om Rs. 1,64,91,599/- paid by the Respondent no.2 to the Corporate Debtor. By the impugned order dated 05.05.2024, the Adjudicating Authority held that the share of outstanding rents received by the Corporate Debtor includes the share of the Respondent No. 1 further directing the Appellant to release the fair share of the Applicant in two weeks in favour of the Applicant. 31. It is noted that in terms of clause 5.1, the respondent no. 2 as lessee was required to pay monthly rent of Rs.31,73,314/- to the Corporate Debtor; and Rs. 6,79,429/- to the Respondent No. 1. The said clause 5.1 of the lease deed indicate that the lease rental payable was all inclusive indicating that all taxes, charges, levies etc. were included in the amount payable by the Respondent No. 2 as lease rental. It has also been brought to our notice that the monthly lease payable to the corporate was later revised considering the reduction in the usage of the area of the said premises i.e. Rs.22,13,855/- to the corporate debtor; and Rs.6,79,429/- to the respondent no.1. 32. We have noted that, in terms of Clause 6.1 of the lease Deed, the respondent no. 2 paid interest free refundable security deposit as les....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt receivable. We note that the Respondent No. 2 has separately filed before us the statement of the Form-26 AS reflecting the amount of TDS deducted by the respondent no. 2 against the respondent no. 1 and also been paying GST @ 18% which can be seen from the GST certificate. The copies of Form 26 AS and the GST certificate are reproduced as under :- 38. Based on above observations, we do not find any error in the Impugned Order dated 05.06.2024. we hold that the Adjudicating Authority, after going through all the documents and evidences, has correctly directed the Appellant to pay due share to the Respondent No. 1. We also note that the Appellant has not challenged the earlier order of the Adjudicating Authority dated 20.02.2020, based on which the Respondent No. 2 had paid to the Corporate Debtor and thus the said order dated 20.02.2020 has attained finality. On the face of it, the Appellant cannot now seek any further alleged outstanding from the respondent no. 2 of Rs. 1,06,81,996/- as sought as one of the reliefs in the present appeal before this Appellate Tribunal. 39. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal fails and stand rejected. No cos....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Fine Tech Corporation Private Limited Registered Office: Jnd Floor, Coun House, Lokmany's Tilsk MarE. Dhabi Talao, Mumbai - 400 002. Phone +91-22-67673800, CIN - US1|00MI12000PTC129528 Document 2 Details of payment Amount a fi SETTLEMENT COMPUTADON [SU BALAT LOGS PRODUCTS PVT. EIDJ Net Amount Fapble Sel Balaj Lag SNHẮC Total Tatal Total 22,11,895 25.93,3:4 22130 67.543 RILASS 24,03,983 22.13,845 6,79,429 28.93,314 2.21:389 67,543 2,89,331 19.92,497 26:05.545 -Aug'ss 22,13,835 6,79,429 67.943 2,89.951 19.52.497 6.11.485 26.05.583 -Sep'19 12,13,885 2853314 2.21,38 67.943 19,92,457 24,05,963 .Dersa 10.47 497 - Nov/19 22.13,885 28.93,314 2.21.389 67,943 2,89,331 19.92.497 6.11 495 -Der'13 22,13,885 28.33,514 47.943 26.00.585 6,79,429 2891.314 2,21.390 67.345 2.05.331 19.32.497 -Feb/20 22.13.885 6.79,429 28,93.314 2,21.339 67 943 29.52.497 25,08.965 22,13,855 6,79,429 2893 314 2,21,549 19.32,457 26,01.943 28 000 . 18.000 1.32.000 2,53,000 Len: Frundibin Security Droora 20.38.287 95.19.542 NEI RENT AETER ADJUSTING SO AMOUNT oc Paid vide UK No, N064201082865342 5 1264201082853845 C....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 6.1 Interest Free Refundable Security Deposit: The Lessce has, on or before the execution of this Agreement, pay to the Lessor a sum of Rs. 74,81,655/- (Rupces Seventy Four Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Six Hundred Fifty Five Only) to "Sri Balaji Logs Products Private Limited" and Rs. 20,38,287 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs Thirty Eight Thousand Two Hundred Eighty Seven only) to SMRC Logistic & Warehouse Service Provider as an interest-free refundable security deposit (hereinafter referred to as the "Security Deposit") which shall remain with the Lessor throughout the period of this Agreement (the receipt whereof the Lessor doth hereby admit and acknowledge and discharge the Lessce with respect to the same). The Lessor shall, on the expiry or cartier determination of this Agreement, as the case may be, respectively refund to the Lessee the Security Deposit. However the Lessee may adjust/collect/take back the Security Deposit from any of the above recipient jointly or separately. 6.2 That Lessce has already paid an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only) to SMRC Logistic & Warehouse Service Provider vide Demand Draft No. 612790 dated 31/01/2018 drawn on HDFC Bank payable a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....justable advance will be paid after deduction of TDS as applicable. For SMRC Logolic & Winehouse Service Provider RO Taxes: Document 6 TDS Centralized Processing Cell TRACES TDS Reconciliation Analysis and Correction Enabling System Form 26AS Annual Tax Statement under Section 203AA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ABYTEGEN BMRC LOGISTIC & WAREHOUSE SERVICE PROVIDER 197, GANFAT BANGLA ROAD, MALAPARA, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL, TOOOUT PART A . Detalle of Tas Budutud el Suene QUIK ELPPLY GIAIN PRIVATE LIMITED MUMPEDIG 747373.00 15-Mar-2019 M-M -. 2019 17929:00 67943.00 67943.00 29-May-2019 11-Ja-3019 29-May 2013 67943:00 . 30-dan- 2019 67943.00 31-Jan-2019 87-61.00 - 31-Jea 3019 05-No. 30L8 - 62043.00 62943.00 05 Nov 2018 67943.10 . 203429.00 203429:00 EOTAK MAHINDRA RAME LIMITED 81133.00 8113.00 8:11:00 1 - - 3-M --- 2017 2500.000 2508.00 31-Mar-2019 ---- -2501.00 -2506.00 . M-M =- 2019 2346.00 2108.00 31-Mar-3019 -2586.00 2506.00 . F 03-Jun-2019 2704.09 16-Apr-2020 27842.00 2706.00 C -7714.00 81-J....