Home Case Index All Cases Income Tax Income Tax + HC Income Tax - 2023 (11) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (11) TMI 201 - DELHI HIGH COURTRecovery of Income tax demand with penalty against company dissolved - Conclusion of CIRP proceedings under IBC - Extinguishment of liability as per the approved resolution plan - HELD THAT:- Some of the notices issued u/s 143(2)predated the order passed by the NCLT, whereby KCPL’s RP was approved. These notices adverted to the fact that additions concerning share application money and depreciation claimed by RGPCL were proposed to be made for AY 2017-18 [Financial Year (FY) 2016- 17]. Thus, limited scrutiny was proposed. The notices were based on the ROI filed by RGPCL. Therefore, the additions to RGPCL's income were, quite clearly, on the anvil. Thus the submission advanced on behalf of the revenue insofar as the tax demand, which is the subject matter of the impugned order and notice dated 06.12.2019, is concerned, is untenable in law. An operational creditor can lodge a claim which needs to be adjudicated. As far as the impugned order and notice are concerned, it will have to suffer the same fate as the penalty which was imposed, and the consequential demand that was created had its genesis in the failure of the previous management of RGPCL in responding to the statutory notices. These notices concerned the aspects mentioned in the first notice issued under Section 143(2) of the 1961 Act. Thus, having regard to the fact that the revenue had not lodged its claim, despite the publication of the public announcement by the Resolution Professional inviting claims from creditors, including statutory/operational creditors such as the revenue, no provision could be made [even if it may otherwise have been possible] in the approved RP. The terms contained in the approved RP are binding on all stakeholders, including those who could have filed claims but chose not to lodge them. The revenue, having failed to lodge its claim, cannot enforce the impugned orders and notices, given the binding nature of the approved RP. Section 31 of the 2016 Code, among other things, stipulates that once the RP is approved, it shall be binding on the corporate debtor and its employees, members, and creditors, which includes the Central Government, State Government, Local Authority to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law for the time being in force and also on authorities to whom statutory dues are owed. Furthermore, the provision also stipulates that the approved plan will bind the guarantors and other stakeholders involved in forging the same. [See Ghanashyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited through the Authorised Signatory Vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limited through the Director, [2021 (4) TMI 613 - SUPREME COURT]. Since the revenue failed to lodge its claims, the impugned demands raised by the revenue stand automatically extinguished. [See Ruchi Soya Industries Limited and Others Vs Union of India and Others, [2022 (3) TMI 60 - SUPREME COURT] and Sreemetaliks Limited Vs. Additional Director General and Ors. [2023 (2) TMI 682 - DELHI HIGH COURT] Therefore, the submission made on behalf of the revenue that it should be allowed to enforce the impugned orders and notices is misconceived in law.
|