IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “NAGPUR” BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI KHETTRA MOHAN ROY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 349/NAG/2023 (AY: 2014-15) ITA No. 350/Nag/2023 (AY: 2015–16)

(Physical hearing)

Universal Industrial Equipment And DCIT, Circle – 2, Nagpur Technical Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Aayakar Bhawan, Room No. 318, CPT Complex, Kamtee Road, Opp. 3^rd Floor, Telangkhedi Road, R. C. Church, Near Patni Auto, Civil Lines, Nagpur, Maharashtra – 440001. Maharashtra – 440001.

[PAN: AAACU3536C]

Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Miss. Veena Agrawal, CA Revenue by Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.02.2026 Date of pronouncement 17.02.2026 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1. These two appeals by assessee are directed against the separate orders of ld.

CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, both dated 27.04.2023 for Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2014–15 & 2015–16. In both the appeals the assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal, raising the plea that the assessee has gone under Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and the claim of Income Tax department was not part of resolution plan approved by resolution professional. With the consent of both the parties both the appeals were clubbed and heard together and are decided by a common order.

2. At the outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that there is delay of 126 days in filing both the appeals. The delay in filing appeal is neither intentional nor deliberate. The assessee has filed application for condonation of delay which is supported by affidavit of Nitin Shankarrao Rakhunde, Manager Accounts of assessee company. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the assessee company undergone through Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) and due to change of management, its address and phone numbers on e–portal and in taking timely decision to make various compliances, certain delay occurred. Such delay is neither intentional nor deliberate. The ld. AR for the assessee prayed for condoning the delay in filing both the appeals.

3. On merit, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that in case of assessee the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Mumbai vide its order dated 07.10.2021 passed in CP(IB) No. 2541 of 2019, in the matter of Tata Hitachi Construction Machinery Company Private Limited Vs Universal Industrial Equipment and Technical Services Private Limited, approved the resolution plan of operational creditor vide order dated 07.10.2021, copy of which is placed on record. On the basis of aforesaid record, the ld. AR of the assessee submits that appeal of appellant is liable to be allowed with prayer for direction to assessing officer to modify / revise / cancel or reduce the demand according to section 156A of Income Tax Act. The ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. vs Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. (2021) 126 taxmann.com 132 (SC), wherein it has been held that once resolution plan is approved by adjudicating authority under section

31(1), the claim has provided in resolution plan is final and will be binding on the corporate debtors, its employees, creditors, State Government or local authority including on Central Government. All such claim which was not part of resolution plan stand extinguished and no other person will be entitled to initiate or continue in respect of a claim which is not a part of resolution plan. The Income Tax Department / Revenue has not made any claim before resolution professional, therefore, demand generated on the basis of assessment order which was further subject matter of appeal before ld. CIT(A) is extinguished. To support her submission, the ld. AR of the assessee also relied upon the decision of Surat Tribunal in DCIT vs Sumeet Industries Ltd. (2023) 150 taxmann.com 464 (Surat Tri