Ker HC to Municipal Corp.: Provide Complaint No. to Citizens to Report Unauthorized Waste Dumping  ||  JKL HC: Can’t Fastened Liability Based on Chief Exam. Without Affording Opportunity to Cross Examine  ||  Ker HC to State: Consider Representation by CBSE Schools Assoc. Against Proposed Fee Regulatory Comm.  ||  Ker. HC: Printing Agencies Required to Remove Illegal Hoardings Within 7 Days of Notice  ||  Cal. HC: Police Can’t Use Power U/S 160 CrPC to Call/Arrest Someone Unconnected With Alleged Offence  ||  Cal. HC: Acquiring Property in Name of Wife is Not Benami Transaction  ||  Bombay HC Upholds Validity of Section 13(8)(b) and Section 8(2) of IGST Act  ||  Del. HC: Haj Pilgrimage is a Religious Practice  ||  SC: If Sufficient Evidence of Involvement Exists, Person Not Named in FIR can be Added as Accused  ||  SC: Possessory Right of Prospective Purchaser Protected U/S 53A of TP Act    

Oasis Textiles Limited vs. The DCIT - (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) (25 Mar 2022)

Once a company is dissolved, it becomes a non-existent party and therefore, no action can be brought in its name


Direct Taxation

The assessee-company was trading in shares. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and notice under section 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (IT Act) was issued and served upon the assessee. Ultimately, the assessment was concluded by the AO by making addition of Rs.1,13,65,136 under Section 68 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash and unexplained income, and assessment order under section 143(3) of the IT Act was accordingly passed. Thereafter, the addition was confirmed by the learned CIT(A) by order. Against the confirmation of addition, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

On completion of liquidation process, assessee- company was dissolved by the NCLT vide order dated 30.6.2020. The claim of the Department was prior to the date of Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT, and therefore, the present income tax proceedings is hit by section 31(1) of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, which has overriding effect vis-à-vis the Income Tax Act, 1961. All these events are within the knowledge of the Income Tax Department, as the OL of assessee-company has intimated the Department from time to time in writing, but no action has been taken by the Department.

Once a company is dissolved, it becomes a non-existent party and therefore no action can be brought in its name. Therefore, in view of overriding effect of IBC code to the Income Tax proceeding, Revenue is not entitled to recover the claim, if any arising from the present proceedings for Assessment year 2015-16, as the same is not part of the resolution plan. The entire proceedings including the appeal have become infructuous and the same is liable to dismissed as infructuous.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2023 - All Rights Reserved