Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Dharitrimaa Urja Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi)
ITAT Delhi held that as National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has admitted application filed by the assessee u/s. 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the present appeal filed by the revenue deserves to be dismissed.
Facts- Revenue has preferred the present appeal contesting that CIT(A) has erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition made by the AO on account of share premium received u/s. 56(2) (viib) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
Conclusion- Held that considering the fact that the NCLT in IB-408 (ND-2022) vide order dated 09/06/2023 had declared moratorium consequently, as per Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016, it was order to prescribe the registration of suits or continuation of pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor including execution of any judgement decree or order in any court of law Tribunal arbitration, penal or other authorities. In view of the same, the present appeal filed by the Department of Revenue is deserves to be dismissed, accordingly, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with an opportunity to approach the Tribunal in case of any necessity on any cause of action touching the issues involved in the present appeal.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI
This appeal by Revenue is filed against the 0rder 0f Learned C0mmissi0ner 0f Inc0me Tax (Appeals)-3, New Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, f0r sh0rt], dated 29/06/2018 f0r Assessment Year 2015-16. Gr0unds taken in this appeal are as under:
“1. “Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law and on the facts of the case in deleting the addition of Rs.9,52,73,036/- made by the AO on account of share premium received u/s 56(2) (viib) of Income Tax Act, 1961”.
2. “The appellant craves leave to modify, add or forego any grounds(s) of appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.” Grounds of appeal.”
The assessee has preferred the following grounds of Appeal inform 35:-
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of AO is bad in law and is liable to be quashed.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in completing the assessment at income of 102625146/- instead of income of Rs. 7352110/ as returned by the appellant.
3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.95273036/- on account of addition of share premium u/s 56(2)viib).
4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the assessing officer is arbitrary.
5. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the various allegations made inferences drawn by the assessing officer are erroneous.
6. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has erred in considering valuation date as financial year relevant to assessment year 2015-16.
7. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has erred in adding share premium in previous year relevant to 2015-16 whereas share application money was received in previous year relevant to assessment year 2014-15 which is against the provisions of section 56(2)(viib) of the Income Tax Act.
8. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has erred in ignoring the valuation reports of valuers as per section 56(2)viib) read with rule 11 UA of the Income Tax Rules..
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has wrongly considered the Net Asset Value of the share.
10. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer has wrongly calculated the Net Asset Value of the share.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in charging interest u/s 234B of Income Tax Act, 1961. 12. 12. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in initiating penalty proceedings u’s 271 (1Xe) of Income Tax Act, 1961.
The aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete one or more ground of appeal before or at the time of hearing of appeal.”
3. When the matter is taken up f0r hearing, the Ld. Assessee’s Representative submitted that the Nati0nal C0mpany Law Tribunal (‘NCLT’ f0r sh0rt) admitted the applicati0n filed under IBC C0de 2016 Ins0lvency and Bankruptcy C0de and the same has been admitted in IB-408/ND/2022 vide 0rder dated 09/06/2023, theref0re, submitted that, the present appeal is liable t0 be dismissed.
4. Per c0ntra, the Ld. Departmental Representative agreed with the pr0p0siti0n 0f the Assessee’s Representative and submitted that an 0pp0rtunity may be given t0 the Department t0 appr0ach the Tribunal if s0, necessary.
5. We have heard b0th the parties and perused the material available 0n C0nsidering the fact that the NCLT in IB-408 (ND-2022) vide 0rder dated 09/06/2023 has declared m0rat0rium c0nsequently, as per Secti0n 14 0f the IBC 2016, it is 0rder t0 prescribe the registrati0n 0f suits 0r c0ntinuati0n 0f pending suits 0r pr0ceedings against the c0rp0rate debt0r including executi0n 0f any judgment decree 0r 0rder in any c0urt 0f law Tribunal arbitrati0n, penal 0r 0ther auth0rities. In view 0f the same, the present appeal filed by the Department 0f Revenue is deserves t0 be dismissed, acc0rdingly, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with an 0pp0rtunity 0f appr0ach the Tribunal in case 0f any necessity 0n any cause 0f acti0n t0uching the issues inv0lved in the present appeal.
6. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
Order pr0n0unced in 0pen C0urt 0n 21st August, 2023
Author Bio
