|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 2028 Records
-
2019 (5) TMI 1928
Clandestine removal of imported goods - Imported fabric was not utilized for the manufacture of readymade garments, which had to be exported - it was held by the High Court that Both the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal were of the opinion that the statements of the Director recorded by the raiding party were in terms of Section 108 of the Customs Act, which was admissible in evidence. The entire issue is, thus, based on appreciation of the materials on record. No question in this respect arises.
HELD THAT:- The impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1927
Summoning the Appellants as additional Accused - breach of Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure or not - bifurcation of main trial - HELD THAT:- The following substantial questions of law arise for further consideration:-
I. Whether the trial court has the power Under Section 319 of Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional Accused when the trial with respect to other co-accused has ended and the judgment of conviction rendered on the same date before pronouncing the summoning order?
II. Whether the trial court has the power Under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for summoning additional Accused when the trial in respect of certain other absconding Accused (whose presence is subsequently secured) is ongoing/pending, having been bifurcated from the main trial?
III. What are the guidelines that the competent court must follow while exercising power Under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure?
The Registry is directed to place these matters before Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a Bench of appropriate strength for considering the aforesaid questions.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1926
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - deemed dividend addition under section 2(22)(e) - assessment completed under section 153A/143(3) - HELD THAT:- All the relevant details to ascertain the applicability of section 2(22)(e) to the loan amount taken by the assessee-company during the year under consideration from M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited thus were either available on the record before the Assessing Officer or the same were called for by him during the course of assessment proceedings by raising specific queries and after applying his mind to the said details, a conscious decision was taken by him as regards the non-applicability of section 2(22)(e) to the loan amount in question while completing the assessment under section 153A/143(3) - In our opinion, it, therefore, cannot be said that there was an error in the order of the Assessing Officer in not making any enquiry or verification on the issue of applicability of section 2(22)(e) to the loan amount in question as alleged by the ld. Principal CIT and the revision under section 263 by the ld. Principal was not called for.
Interest was paid by the assessee on the loan amount received from M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited and as held by the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Pradip Kumar Malhotra [2011 (8) TMI 16 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT] the loan given to the assessee by M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited as a consequence of further consideration, which was beneficial to the said company, cannot be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e).
Assessee-company was not the shareholder in M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited during the year under consideration and the amount of loan in question thus could not be treated as deemed dividend under section 2(22)(e) even on this ground as rightly contended by the ld. Counsel for the assessee. D.R. has not disputed this legal position cited by the ld. Counsel for the assessee in support of the assessee’s case that section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to the loan amount received from M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited. He, however, has contended that there is nothing on record to show that this legal position was specifically considered by the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment under section 153A/143(3) of the Act.
We are unable to accept this contention of the ld. D.R. In our opinion, the Assessing Officer is not only expected to be aware of such legal position but is also dutybound to apply the same while completing the assessment, especially when it is propounded by the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court. In the present case, the Assessing Officer thus had not only made the enquiry or verification as required in the facts of the case to ascertain the applicability of section 2(22)(e) to the loan amount received by the assessee from M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited, but a conscious decision was also taken by him keeping in view the legal position that section 2(22)(e) was not applicable to the loan amount received by the assessee during the year under consideration from M/s. Vijayshree Industries Pvt. Limited.
There was thus no error in the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 153A/143(3) of the Act as alleged by the ld. Principal CIT and the revision of the same under section 263 by the ld. Principal CIT was not called for. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1925
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Initiation of CIRP of the Corporate Debtor by IDBI Bank (Financial Creditor) or not - the controversy about the title of the Pipe Line is still to be resolved in between the Corporate Debtor and ESIL - default of debt of the Financial Creditor more than ₹ 1,00,000/- or not - HELD THAT:- The defence as appears from pleadings is that the amount is not due because issue of title of Pipe Line is still sub judices. I hold that such defence is not acceptable at all. The Corporate Debtor having availed the financial assistance/loan from the Corporate Debtor cannot deny to repay the same on the ground that the assets which were mortgage to the Bank are not belong to them etc. It is true that the Officers of the IDBI Bank ought not to have granted such a huge loan on the basis of such disputed assets which may be or may not belong to the Corporate Debtor. But the Bank (i.e. Financial Creditor) being a trusty of public money and only due to some incorrect decisions of top Officers, the Bank as a whole cannot be made to suffer.
It is brought to notice that the Financial Creditor's claim is now being considered by the RP/CoC in the proceeding against the ESIL pending before the Adjudicating Authority at Ahmedabad. Be that as it may one fact is certain that IDBI Bank cannot file the same claim before the different Authorities but as on today there is nothing on record to show that IDBI's claims has been considered by the RP in that proceeding. Be that as it may in this case IDBI Bank has proved both crucial facts i.e. they owned financial debt against the Corporate Debtor and the Corporate Debtor committed default in paying the debt.
The application filed by the Financial Creditor under Section 7 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016 for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process against the Corporate Debtor, M/s. Odisha Slurry Pipeline Infrastructure Limited is hereby admitted - moratorium declared.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1924
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition invoking provisions of s. 69B in respect of alleged cash payment for purchase of Land - HELD THAT:- We observe that explanation 2(b) of Section 147 of the Act which deals with the cases where income chargeable to tax is deemed to be escaped for assessment, applies on the given facts which provides that “where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Ld. A.O that the assessee has under stated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return”. Same is the situation in the case of the assessee wherein the Ld. A.O received the information which indicated that the assessee has understated income or has not disclosed the investment properly. These reasons was sufficient to apply the above provisions on the assessee alleging that he has not declared proper income or investment and escaped the tax assessment. Therefore in our considered view Ld. A.O has rightly issued the notice u/s 148 of the Act to frame the reassessment in the case of the assessee - We therefore find no reason to interfere in the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss assessee’s Ground No.1.
Addition u/s 69B - Addition will not stand for under the provisions of Section 69B of the Act, firstly because the alleged land is not purchased by the assessee but is purchased in the name of another assessee namely Natural Gadia Real Estate Pvt. Ltd and secondly the assessee who is earning income from salary, house property and income from other sources is not maintaining any books of accounts and for making any addition u/s 69B of the Act there should be specific finding by Ld. A.O that the investment made by the assessee exceeds the amount recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee for any source of income and the assessee offers no explanation about such excess amount or the explanation offered by the assessee is not, in the opinion of the A.O, satisfactory.
In the instant case the assessee is not maintaining any books of accounts nor the land in question is purchased by him. Even otherwise the amount of investment in land shown by Natural Gadia Real Estate Pvt. Ltd is duly supported by various documentary evidences referred above and payment made through account payee cheque duly mentioned in the registered sale deeds.
Both the lower authorities erred in confirming the addition by wrongly invoking provisions of Section 69B of the Act, as the alleged transaction of sale of land by two sellers to the buyer M/s. Natural Gadia Real Estate Pvt. Ltd was entered into at a consideration of ₹ 95,00,000/- only and no corroborative evidence is placed on record by the revenue authorities as well as Ld. Departmental Representative which could prove that “on money” was paid over and above the stated sale consideration in the registered sale deed. We, therefore set aside the finding of Ld. CIT(A) and delete the addition made in the hands of the assessee by Ld. A.O u/s 69B - Decided in favour of assessee partly.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1923
Dishonor of Cheque - contra evidence let in by the respondents/defendants to disprove the execution of the pronote or not - production of statement in support of their pleading set out in the written statement - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The burden is upon the defendants that the suit promissory note was given by the deceased G.Pandurangan only in the said Finance Firm, but the defendants did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the aforesaid plea. Further, if really the said G.Pandurangan had not executed the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff, the first defendant would have sent a reply to Ex.A2 notice. Further, she would have entered into the witness box and subjected herself for cross examination - Once it is proved that the suit promissory note has been executed by thedeceased G.Pandurangan, as per Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, it has to be presumed that the said promissory note is supported by consideration.
It is to be pointed out that it is not the case of the defendants that the deceased G.Pandurangan had any bad habits and he would have used the said amount for any illegal purpose. Therefore, it has to be presumed that he borrowed the amount only for the benefit of the family. Therefore, the defendants are bound to discharge the said debt from and out of the estate left by the deceased G.Pandurangan which is in their hands - the trial Court had rightly decreed the suit. Further, though the plaintiff had claimed interest at the rate of 24% till the date of the suit, the trial Court taking into consideration the transaction is not a commercial transaction, it has reduced the interest and directed the defendants to pay the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for the principal and subsequent interest at the rate of 6% per annum. But the first Appellate Court without appreciating the evidence in a proper perspective had erroneously reversed the findings of the trial Court and therefore, the Second Appeal has to be allowed.
The Second Appeal is allowed with costs.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1922
Let notice be issued on the respondents by Speed Post. Requisite along with process fee, if not filed, be filed by 17th May, 2019. If the appellant provides the e-mail address of respondents, let notice be also issued through e-mail.
Post the case ‘for Admission (After Notice) on 18th July, 2019.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1921
Revision u/s 263 by CIT - Denial of natural justice - As argued assessee has not been served any notice u/s 263 - HELD THAT:- There is no service of notice on the assessee did not meet the requirement of opportunity of being heard as provided under section 263 of the income tax act. It is mandatory for the learned principal Commissioner of income tax, who passed the order under section 263 of the income tax act, or to have been fully satisfied that the adequate opportunity was given to the assessee to controvert the facts stated in the notice under section 263 and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts.
The satisfaction of the commissioner on this count could not have been arrived as the process commencing with the issue of the notice under section 263: in in the order was completely hurried and without following the mandatory requirement of serving a notice on the assessee and opportunity of being heard given to the assessee. In view of this there is no doubt that this does not constitute any opportunity in respect of notice under section 263 of the income tax act - we are unable to sustain the order passed by the learned Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1920
Allowable business expenditure - fees paid by the assessee to its group company - HELD THAT:- As pointed out by the Ld. counsel, the Ld. CIT (A) has decided the identical issue in favour of the assessee by following the order of the coordinate Bench rendered in the assessee’s own case [2016 (10) TMI 1 - ITAT MUMBAI] - As revenue has not pointed out any material change in the facts of the present case. Hence, respectfully following the decision of the coordinate Bench passed in assessee’s own case referred above, we uphold the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the sole ground of appeal of the revenue.
Addition u/s 40A(2) - Payment made to subsidiary company - HELD THAT:- As has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Vs. Dempo & Company Pvt. Ltd. [2010 (10) TMI 711 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], only a Director of a company, partner of a firm or member of the association or any family or any relative of such Director, partner or member is a related person under sub- clause (ii) of clause (b) of sub-section (2) of section 40. A subsidiary company of the assessee is not a related person within the meaning of section 40A (2), the provisions of section 40A(2) do not attract in the present case. Since, the issue involved in the present case are similar to the issue involved in the aforesaid case, it can safety be concluded that the provisions of section 40A(2) do not apply in the present case.
Hence we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT (A) has wrongly confirmed the ad-hoc disallowance made by the AO with regard to payment of research fees made by the assessee to its sister concern. Since, the authorities below have not denied the expenditure in question and allowed the expenses @ 5,00,000/- per month, the only issue remains as to whether how much of the expenses is allowable. Since, the AO has not justified its action by pointing out any cogent and convincing reason for disallowance of the remaining amount, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have set aside the findings of the AO. Hence, following the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court discussed above, we allow this ground of appeal of the assessee and set aside the findings of the Ld. CIT (A).
Revenue’s appeal is dismissed and the assessee’s appeal is allowed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1919
Seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of trade mark, passing off, unfair competition, for rendition of accounts of profits/damages, delivery up etc. - HELD THAT:- Due to the lack of any defence on behalf of Defendant No. 1, as also the fact that no valid defence has been raised disputing the Plaintiffs' rights in the mark by Defendant Nos. 2 and 3, the suit is liable to be decreed. Accordingly, a decree of permanent injunction is granted in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants Nos. 1 to 3 in terms of para 34 (a), (b) and (c) of the plaint.
The damages are liable to be awarded against the Defendant no. 1. The suit is decreed against Defendant No. 1 for a sum of ₹ 20 lakhs. Insofar as Defendants No. 2 and 3 are concerned, the said Defendants shall pay damages of ₹ 50,000/- each to the Plaintiff. Defendant No. 2 and 3 are willing to handover the seized products to the Plaintiffs representative. Both Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to hand over the products seized from them by the Local Commissioners to the Plaintiffs' representative on 20th May, 2019 and 21st May, 2019. The costs shall be paid on the date when the Plaintiffs' representative visits the premises of Defendant Nos. 2 and 3.
The Plaintiff has suffered heavy costs in the litigation including court fees, fees of the Local Commissioners, cost of investigation, etc. The suit is decreed against Defendant No. 1 with actual costs incurred. Let bill of costs incurred be placed on record by Ld. Counsel for the Plaintiff.
The suit is decreed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1918
Dishonor of Cheque - proceedings under Section 82 Cr.P.C. to declare the petitioner proclaimed person were initiated - whether the proceedings under Section 174A I.P.C. should be allowed to continue or not? - HELD THAT:- In the considered view of this Court, once the order declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person ceases to exist on account of the fact that he was later on granted bail by the learned trial court and he continued to put in appearance, in such circumstances, the FIR which was registered consequently upon declaring the petitioner as proclaimed person is also required to be closed.
No doubt, the learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that the offence under Section 174A I.P.C. is independent of the main case, therefore, merely because the main case has been dismissed for want of prosecution, the present petition cannot be allowed, however, keeping in view the fact that the present FIR was registered only on account of absence from the proceedings in the main case which had been subsequently regularised by the court while granting bail to the petitioner, the default stood condoned. In such circumstances, continuation of proceeding sunder Section 174A I.P.C. shall be abuse of the process of court.
Petition allowed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1917
Maintainability of application - initiation of CIRP - Corporate Debtor failed to make repayment of its dues - Financial Creditors - allocation of voting share to the CoC - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd.'- (Corporate Debtor) defaulted in repayment of outstanding dues of the Appellant, the Appellant has issued notice under Section 13(2) of the 'SARFAESI Act, 2002' on 25th February, 2017. The liability of the Appellant qua the 'Corporate Debtor' admittedly cannot be jointly calculated with two other entities namely Value Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.' and Value Infrabuild India Pvt. Ltd.', they not being the 'Corporate Debtor' in the present case.
The Corporate Debtor (Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd.) facing separately triggered application under Section 7, the Appellant cannot claim the dues which is payable by other Co-borrowers, the other 'Corporate Debtor' in the 'Resolution Process' against the present 'Corporate Debtor' - the amount having been separately disbursed as per request of three different entities who signed jointly, it is clear that individual entities like Value Infrabuild India Pvt. Ltd.' received a sum of ₹ 29,55,00,000/-; Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd.' received a sum of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- and Value Infratech India Pvt. Ltd.' received a sum of ₹ 6,65,00,000/- in their respective Bank Accounts. Having received such amounts separately, the Appellant cannot claim all the payments from the 'Corporate Debtor' pursuant to the Loan Agreement dated 17th September, 2014 where in after 19th September, 2014 letter was issued.
In view of the fact that the three entities were provided amounts separately in their respective Bank Accounts, the Adjudicating Authority rightly held that the Appellant as a 'Financial Creditor' can claim its voting shares based on the amount actually disbursed in favour of Value Infracon India Pvt. Ltd.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1916
Seeking approval of Resolution Plan - Section 30 (6) and Section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 read with Regulation 39 (4) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016 - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (2) of section 30 casts duty on the resolution professional to examine the resolution plan received by him to confirm that such resolution plan provides for the payment of insolvency resolution process costs, provides for the payment of the debts of the operational creditors in such manner as may be specified, provides for the management of the affairs of the corporate debtor after approval of the resolution plan the implementation and supervision of the resolution plan. That the resolution plan does not contravene any of the provisions of the law, and that the resolution plan conforms to such other requirements as may be specified by the Board.
The resolution professional has certified in detail that he ha examined and verified the resolution plan approved by the COC, in the light of the requirements of the Code and Regulations and that it is compliant to the relevant provisions of the code and regulations. The Resolution Professional has placed the Resolution Plan for our approval - Resolution Professional has certified that the resolution plan does not contravene any provisions of the law for the time being in force. He further certifies that he has submitted to the committee of creditors the resolution plan, which comply with the requirements of the Code and the regulations made there under. Resolution Professional further confirms that the resolution plan and the resolution applicant comply with the requirement of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, Insolvency and Bankruptcy Board of India (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons) Regulations, 2016.
All the requirements of Section 30 (2) are fulfilled and no provision of the law for the time being in force has been contravened.
Whether the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation is required to be ensured by the Adjudicating Authority in terms of the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the Code? - HELD THAT:- Punjab National Bank, Muzaffarnagar has submitted a certificate dated 04.05.2019 vide diary dated 18.05.2019 that the Joint Resolution Applicants has deposited ₹ 50 lakhs as earnest money deposit in two installments with respect to the Resolution Plan of the Corporate Debtor - In the facts, it is seen that the Resolution Plan meets the requirements of Section 30 (2) of the Code and that the resolution plan has provisions for its effective implementation.
The requirements as per the Code and regulations have been complied with - the resolution plan, as approved by the CoC, is in accordance with the sub-section 2 of Section 30 read with Section 31 of the Code and as the Resolution Applicant is not disqualified under Section 29A of the Code; we hereby approve the Resolution Plan under subsection (1) of Section 31 of the Code.
Resolution plan is approved - moratorium shall cease to have effect.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1915
Validity of award - execution of works contract - failure of HCC to furnish hinderance free site - resistance of extension of the validity period of the PBG - Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - HELD THAT:- The learned arbitrator has scrupulously gone through each and every claim and only after giving due consideration to the material on record, he has reached his conclusion vis-à-vis the claims lodged by Ipex. It is this wholesome approach of the learned arbitrator that despite the absence of HCC’s written submissions, the claim lodged by Ipex for loss of profit was declined and some of the claims were scaled down. Therefore, the submission made on this score on behalf of HCC by Mr. Dayan Krishnan cannot be accepted.
It must be indicated that apart from anything else, the learned arbitrator was to a very large extent persuaded to hold in favour of Ipex as the evidence on record demonstrated that the obligations undertaken by HCC at the meeting held 16.03.2016 were not discharged. The evidence on record also shows that bills had remained unpaid, monies had been retained from the running bills by HCC and that huge amounts had been incurred by Ipex by way of idling cost due to a misrepresentation made by HCC with regard to the availability of hindrance free site. The fact that HCC coerced Ipex to extend the PBG from time to time is an aspect which also emerges from the record.
Petition dismissed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1914
Maintainability of application - error apparent on the face of record or not - Section 11 of NCLAT Rules - HELD THAT:- There is no provision of review under the procedures. Under sub-section (2) of Section 420, only mistake apparent from the record can be rectified. No such mistake apparent on the face of the record is shown by the counsel. The Applicant is re-agitating the issues which were earlier before the NCLT and then agitated before this Appellate Tribunal and regarding which we have already passed the judgement.
Section 11 of NCLAT Rules cannot be so invoked so as to create power to Review Judgement, which Power has not been conferred by Legislature.
Application dismissed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1913
Condonation of delay in filing the claim - last date fixed for filing the claim in the public notice is 18.12.2018 whereas the claim was filed on 05.03.2019 - HELD THAT:- The resolution plan submitted by the resolution plan applicant are under consideration of the CoC. The CoC is likely to meet to consider the resolution plan. Therefore, there is still time for consideration the claim as the CIR Process is not yet over. Accordingly, we direct the RP to consider the claim without rejecting it on the ground of delay.
The claim of the applicant is considered. The delay is condoned - Application allowed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1912
Dishonor of Cheque - second legal notice sent beyond a period of thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour - delay occurred in the institution of the complaint only for the period after 6 April 2016 after the issuance of the second notice - section 138 of NI Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the facts indicate that the Appellant issued a legal notice on 31 December 2015. This was within a period of thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour on 4 December 2015. Consequently, the requirement stipulated in proviso (b) to Section 138 was fulfilled. Proviso (c) spells out a requirement that the drawer of the cheque has failed to make payment to the holder in due course or payee within fifteen days of the receipt of the notice. The second Respondent does not as a matter of fact, admit that the legal notice dated 31 December 2015 was served on him. The Appellant has in the complaint specifically narrated the circumstance that despite repeated requests to the postal department, no acknowledgment of the notice was furnished - Cognizant as we are of the requirement specified in proviso (b) to Section 138, that the notice must be issued within thirty days of the receipt of the memo of dishonour, we have proceeded on the basis that it is the first notice dated 31 December 2015 which constitutes the cause of action for the complaint Under Section 138.
The High Court has merely adverted to the presumption that the first notice would be deemed to have been served if it was dispatched in the ordinary course. Even if that presumption applies, we are of the view that sufficient cause was shown by the Appellant for condoning the delay in instituting the complaint taking the basis of the complaint as the issuance of the first legal notice dated 31 December 2015 - the impugned judgment of the High Court is unsustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1911
Replacement of Liquidator - Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar Raut is unable to continue as Liquidator due to pre-occupation for other works and various other reasons - HELD THAT:- Mr. Ardhendu Shekhar Raut is relieved from his duties as Liquidator. Instead, Mr. Bimal Kanti Choudhury (Mob.No.9831522717) having registration no. IBBI-IPA-001/IP-P01028/2017-18/11682, email © no.bimalkantichoudhury @ gmail.com is appointed as the Liquidator from the Panel of Insolvency Professionals recommended for appointment as IRP and Liquidator approved by the IBBI.
Let the certified copy of the order be issued upon compliance with requisite formalities
-
2019 (5) TMI 1910
Liquidation of Corporate Debtor - section 33 of 1&B Code - HELD THAT:- CIRP period of 180 days completed on 28.01.2019. IRP requsted this authority to give extension of 90 days as per section 12(2) of the IBC. However, his request was not supported by the CoC. CoC did not pass such resolution. Hence, his request was turned down. This authority made enquiry with the IRP whether he received any resolution plan but IRP submitted that there was no response from anybody. None has submitted even Eol - there is dispute going on about the assets of the corporate debtor, i.e. residential flat. Some parties filed title suit in the Civil Court at Alipore. This may be the reason that none submitted the plan. Be that as it may, no resolution plan is received by IRP and the CoC. Although, one M/s. Hotel Polo Torner Development has submitted Eol but no plan is received from them within 180 days.
It appears from record that during CIRP, the IRP held eight CoC meetings. The CoC did not confirm his appointment as RP. The insolvency of the corporate debtor could not be resolved for want of resolution plan. CIRP period is already over. Hence, this authority has left with no option but to pass order of liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 33 of 1&B Code. Hence, proceed to pass an order requiring the Corporate Debtor to be liquidated in the manner as laid down in the Chapter III of Part II of I&B Code.
Corporate Debtor- M/s.RLA Holdings Private Limited is liquidated - Application allowed.
-
2019 (5) TMI 1909
Reopening of assessment u/s 147 - addition of bogus purchases - reopening only on the basis of statement given by the third party - denial of cross-examine of the third party - assessee has submitted that the AO has erred on facts and in law forming a negative inference solely on the basis of extracts of statement by third parties without confronting the same to the assessee and in total disregard to the provisions of law - AO has not provided the statement of the third party on which the basis the addition was made and also not provided the opportunity of cross examination of the same - HELD THAT:- As the issue in dispute along with the documentary evidence filed by the assessee in two paper books and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andaman Timber Industries [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT] it is clear that the Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity of cross-examine to the third party as well as not supplying the statement of the same to the assessee which is contrary to the principle of natural justice and the addition on this basis is not sustainable in the eye of law.
Respectfully following the decision given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reproduced above, we are of the view that the Assessing Officer has not given any opportunity to the assessee for cross-examine to the third party of which basis the addition in dispute has been made. Respectfully following the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India the addition in dispute is deleted by accepting the appeal filed by the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
