TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (9) TMI 1326
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....oe Lane, 7th Floor, Kolkata, West Bengal-70001. The petitioner has consistently complied with the statutory requirements and fulfilled tax obligations in a timely manner under applicable laws. 3. For the assessment year 2017-18, the petitioner filed its return of income on November 29, 2017, declaring a loss of Rs.7,47,68,47,282/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on March 15, 2019, leading to a refund of Rs.19,49,06,579/- sanctioned in favour of the petitioner. 4. The Bank of India subsequently initiated proceedings under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Kolkata Bench, for Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) against the petitione....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... initiated under Section 148A(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the subsequent notices and orders issued under Sections 148A(d) and 148 are entirely without jurisdiction and ought to be quashed. The petitioner asserts that the respondent authorities have failed to adhere to the statutory requirements mandated under the Income Tax Act and have acted in a manner that is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to established legal principles. 10. The petitioner contends that the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC), which is a special statute, have an overriding effect over the Income Tax Act, 1961. The moratorium imposed under Section 14 of the IBC, along with the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... due consideration. The petitioner had specifically raised objections regarding the lack of jurisdiction and the bar on reassessment proceedings due to the provisions of the IBC and the resolution plan. However, these objections were summarily disregarded by the respondent authorities. 14. The petitioner contends that the actions of the respondent authorities, including the initiation and continuation of reassessment proceedings, constitute an abuse of power. The failure to conduct a proper inquiry, the reliance on incomplete and selective information, the disregard for statutory limitations, and the overriding effect of the IBC collectively render the proceedings illegal and unsustainable in law. 15. In light of the above submissions....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... upon making necessary inquiries, the respondent passed an order under Section 148A(d) on April 22, 2024, holding that the matter warranted reassessment and issued a notice under Section 148. 18. The respondents contend that the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT does not prohibit reassessment proceedings initiated prior to the "Appointed Date." While the petitioner has referred to Serial No. 36 of the Resolution Plan under the heading "Taxation," the respondents emphasize that it prohibits only reassessment proceedings initiated after the Appointed Date and offers no relief for proceedings already initiated. Additionally, the petitioner has not demonstrated the existence of an "Effective Date" as defined in the Resolution Plan. 19.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ncy Resolution Process (CIRP). Furthermore, the resolution plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has overriding authority, as per Section 238 of the IBC and expressly precludes reassessment or revision proceedings for the period prior to the effective date stipulated in the plan. The respondents' actions are in direct contravention of these provisions. 23. In Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 9 SCC 657 it was held that: "95. i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved 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....