IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 JEKPL Private Limited, Vs DCIT, Tower B, 20^th Floor, Circle-13(1), Alphathum, Plot No.1, Delhi.

Sector-90, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 201 305.

PAN: AABCE2251K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, Advocate &

Ms. Richa Aggarwal, AR Revenue by : Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 22.10.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2025

ORDER

PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 23.02.2022 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for assessment year 2017-18.

2. Heard and perused the record. The controversy raised in this appeal by way of ground no. 2 with its sub-grounds is variation to returned income cannot be made on the appellant in terms of provision of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (‘IBC’), in the background that as the assessee company, on 03.03.2017, had filed an application under section 10 of the IBC before the Allahabad Bench of the NCLT. The said application was admitted by the NCLT vide order dated 17.03.2017. The NCLT, while admitting the resolution application announced moratorium under section 14 of the IBC effective from 17.03.2017 till any resolution plan is approved under section 31 of the IBC and subsequently M/s Atyant Capital emerged as the successful resolution applicant, to acquire the assessee company. The successful resolution applicant submitted its final resolution plan/ scheme which was duly approved by, inter alia, the Committee of Creditors. Thereafter, the aforesaid final resolution plan was filed before the NCTL and was duly approved by the said adjudicating authority vide order dated 17.01.2020 (as amended by order dated 04.02.2020).

3. The claim of assessee is that on approval of the resolution plan by NCLT under section 31 of the IBC, the same becomes binding on all the stakeholder including the income tax authorities. All the liabilities of the corporate debtor (assessee in the present case) relating to the period prior to approval of the resolution plan stand settled in accordance with the approved resolution plan read with provisions of IBC. It is also submitted that as per the approved terms of resolution plan, the net income tax asset / liabilities appearing on the balance sheet of the corporate debtor (assessee in the present case) on effective date (date of approval of final resolution plan by NCLT) shall be extinguished or annulled.

3.1 It is submitted for the assessee that any liability (including statutory dues/ liabilities) which relates to the period prior to the approval of resolution plan by NCLT and which arises subsequently after the approval of resolution plan by NCLT shall stand extinguished/ annulled on approval of the resolution plan, even though the same is not specifically provided to be discharged in the resolution plan. In that view of the matter, no liability including tax, interest or penalty, whatsoever, relating to the period prior to 4.02.2020 could be raised/

claimed against the corporate debtor (assessee).

4. The DRP vide direction dated 11.01.2022 has sustained the validity of order passed by the assessing officer/TPO allegedly holding that:

‘the code does not stay any proceedings under the Income Tax Act, 1961 but only states that the claims of the department will be entertained by the Official Liquator duly appointed.”

5. Ld. Counsel of assessee has reasserted the contentions as submitted before the DRP and reliance was placed on the decision of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Minosha India Limited vs. CIT [ITA No. 97/2003] wherein Hon’ble High Court held that once the resolution plan is approved by the NCLT, the corpora