DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh V. M/s Marsh Steel Ltd., Chandigarh

ITA 412/CHANDI/2019

AI Insights

The case involves a series of appeals and cross-objections related to the income tax assessments of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. and other associated companies for various assessment years. The primary issues revolved around the additions made under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, concerning the share capital and commission expenses. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, consolidated these cases due to the commonality of issues and the interconnectedness of the parties involved. The Tribunal considered the impact of the insolvency resolution process under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), particularly the resolution plan approved by the NCLT and NCLAT, which significantly influenced the outcome of the appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 127638 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-06-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2019
• Other Referred Cases: K.P. Verghese vs. ITO, Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank, CIT vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited, Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company, State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd.
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Question of law; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Competent authority; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Sham transactions; Condonation of delay; Unabsorbed depreciation; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside; Liquidation
• Section: 147; 68; 132; 69C; 143(3); 153A; 115JB; 250; 48; 13; 153

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “ए” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH ी आकाश द प जैन, उपा य एवं ी #व$म &संह यादव, लेखा सद+य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 36/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2009-10 The DCIT Central Circle-I, Chandigarh बनाम M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACB9760D अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 467 to 471/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT Central Circle-I, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAACB9760D अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Joshi, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 405 to 409/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh बनाम M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV8232B अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 8 to 12/Chd/2021 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 405 to 409/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area, Phase I Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCV8232B अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent 2 नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 410 to 414/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 The DCIT, CC-1, Sector- 17, Chandigarh बनाम M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area-1 Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7569E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 13 to 17/Chd/2021 In ( आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 410 to 414/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 3 Industrial Area-1 Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT, CC-1, Sector- 17, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AADCM7569E अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 415 to 419/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh बनाम M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 3, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCJ2348C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 18 to 22/Chd/2021 In (आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 415 to 419/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 3, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCJ2348C अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent 3 नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 420 to 424/Chd/ 2019 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh बनाम M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 3, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCD8983H अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent Cross Objection No. 23 to 27/Chd/2021 In ( आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 420 to 424/Chd/ 2019) नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 to 2014-15 M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 3, Industrial Area, Phase-1 Chandigarh बनाम The DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AABCD8983H अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Nangia, CIT, DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 22/03/2023 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 19/06/2023 आदेश/Order PER BENCH : These are set of appeals and cross objections filed by the Revenue and the aforesaid assessees namely, M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Limited and other connected cases against the respective orders of the ld CIT(A) pertaining to A.Y 2009-10 to A.Y 2014-15. Since the issues involved in all the above appeals are common and are connected, these appeals/cross-objections were heard together and are being disposed off by this consolidated order. 4 ITA No. 36/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 2. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 22/10/2018, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: “i. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld, CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,60,29,604/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance of interest u/s 36(i) (iii) of the Act without going into merits of the case. ii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (A) has failed to appreciate that the addition has been made on the basis of material collected during the search and post search enquiries which constituted incriminating material for the purpose of making assessment u/s 153A of the Act. iii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in concluding that there is a difference in scope of proceedings under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for an abated assessment and a completed assessment. iv. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in holding that no addition can be made u/s 153A in respect of completed assessment if no incriminating material is found during search. v. Whether there is any restriction on the powers of the Assessing Officer under section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 to confine only to the "incriminating material found during the search", even though such words or conditions are not ( mentioned in the section per se. vi. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in interpreting section 153A which starts with a non- obstinate clause stating therein that the operation of section 139,147,148,149,151 & 153 was deposed meaning thereby that in search cases the Assessing Officer is duty bound to take up the assessment u/s 153A and that the above mentioned sections cannot be invoked. Therefore, even if incriminating material is not found during search, but if any escaped income or under-assessed income undisclosed income has to be assessed for such completed assessment, then it has to be done in the proceedings u/s 153A in search cases as during the pendency of the proceedings u/s 153A, the proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 cannot be initiated. vii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in ignoring the principles of strict interpretation of statute when the phrase used in the section 153A(1) (b) of the IT Act 1961 is assess or reassess the total income. viii. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was correct in relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 5 Vegetable Products Ltd., 88 ITR 1992 (SC) when the language of section 153A(1) (b) is very clear and unambiguous. ix. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to consider the judgments of the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of E.N. Gopakumar v. CIT 75 taxmann. Com 215 and judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT, Kanpur v. Raj Kumar Arora 367 ITR 517 which lay down the correct proposition of law. x. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” ITA No. 467/Chd/2019 for A.Y 2010-11 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 3. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 165,20,00,000/- on account of amounts received as share capital from the following four companies by holding the same to be sham transactions: - (a) M/s Diya Jyoti Steel Ltd - Rs. 41.25 crores (b) M/s Marsh Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 42.80 crores (c) M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 41.75 crores (d) M/s Vision Steel Ltd - Rs. 39.40 crores 2. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 3,30,40,000/- on account of commission expenses allegedly paid by the Appellant Company for arranging alleged accommodation entries in respect of share capital. 3. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing of Rs. 3,23,32,745/-out of interest account by resort to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the Appellant Company had made certain non-business advances. 4. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in not dealing with the ground that the assessment has been framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by ignoring basic 6 principle of natural justice relying on the statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law by treating the same to be general in nature. 5. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of any unabsorbed depreciation and current year's business loss against the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. 6. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 153A by ignoring the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search u/s 132 on 21.02.2014. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to hold that the Ld. Assessing Officer was justified in making addition on account of share capital despite the fact that the assessment for the relevant assessment year had been framed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission vide its order dated 30/06/2013 and in terms of section 245-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such assessment had become conclusive. ITA No. 468/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 4. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.539,32,00,000/- on account of amounts received as share capital from the following four companies by holding the same to be sham transactions: - (a) M/s Diya Jyoti Steel Ltd - Rs. 130.27 crores (b) M/s Marsh Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 130.60 crores (c) M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 141.35 crores (d) M/s Vision Steel Ltd - Rs. 127.10 crores 2. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 10,58,64,000/- on account of commission 7 expenses allegedly paid by the Appellant Company for arranging alleged accommodation entries in respect of share capital. 3. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing of Rs.9,68,98,672/-out of interest account by resort to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the Appellant Company had made certain non-business advances. 4. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in not dealing with the ground that the assessment has been framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by ignoring basic principle of natural justice relying on the statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law by treating the same to be general in nature. 5. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of any unabsorbed depreciation and current year's business loss against the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. 6. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings u/s 153A by ignoring the fact that no incriminating material was found during the course of search u/s 132 on 21.02.2014. 7. That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to hold that the Ld. Assessing Officer was justified in making addition on account of share capital despite the fact that the assessment for the relevant assessment year had been framed by the Hon'ble Income Tax Settlement Commission vide its order dated 30/06/2013 and in terms of section 245-I of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such assessment had become conclusive. ITA No. 469/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 5. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax 8 (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified touphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1203,32,00,000/- on account of amounts received as share capital from the following four companies by holding the same to be sham transactions: - (a) M/s Diya Jyoti Steel Ltd - Rs. 316.80 crores (b) M/s Marsh Steel Trading Ltd Rs. 301.31 crores (c) M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 295.45 crores (d) M/s Vision Steel Ltd - Rs. 289.76 crores 2. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3.Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.24,06,64,000/- on account of commission expenses allegedly paid by the Appellant Company for arranging alleged accommodation entries in respect of share capital. 3. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing of Rs. 42,41,98,380/-out of interest account by resort to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the Appellant Company had made certain non-business advances. 4. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in not dealing with the ground that the assessment has been framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by ignoring basic principle of natural justice relying on the statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law by treating the same to be general in nature. 5. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of any unabsorbed depreciation and current year's business loss against the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. ITA No. 470/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 6. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax 9 (Appeals) - 3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.243,79,00,000/- on account of amounts received as share capital from the following four companies by holding the same to be sham transactions: - (a) M/s Diya Jyoti Steel Ltd - Rs. 56.33 crores (b) M/s Marsh Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 60.78 crores (c) M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 55.71 crores (d) M/s Vision Steel Ltd - Rs. 70.97 crores 2. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act bythe Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.4,87,58,000/- on account of commission expenses allegedly paid by the Appellant Company for arranging alleged accommodation entries in respect of share capital. 3. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing of Rs. 119,41,69,313/-out of interest account by resort to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the Appellant Company had made certain non-business advances. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified to arbitrarily restrict the claim of the Appellant in treating the sales tax subsidy as capital receipt only to the extent of Rs. 5,03,98,605/- as against claim of Rs. 47,78,02,115/- 5. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3.Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in not dealing with the ground that the assessment has been framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by ignoring basic principle of natural justice relying on the statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law by treating the same to be general in nature. 6. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of any unabsorbed depreciation and current year's business loss against the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. ITA No. 471/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. 10 7. This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 27/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Income -tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the "Act") by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) - 3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs.764,78,00,000/- on account of amounts received as share capital from the following four companies by holding the same to be sham transactions: - (a) M/s Diya Jyoti Steel Ltd - Rs. 190.89 crores (b) M/s Marsh Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 191.23 crores (c) M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd - Rs. 193.99 crores (d) M/s Vision Steel Ltd - Rs. 188.67 crores 2. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 15,29,56,000/- on account of commission expenses allegedly paid by the Appellant Company for arranging alleged accommodation entries in respect of share capital. 3. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) -3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in disallowing of Rs. 129,59,67,896/-out of interest account by resort to provisions of Section 36(1)(iii) on the ground that the Appellant Company had made certain non-business advances. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A) was not justified to arbitrarily negate the claim of the Appellant in treating the sales tax subsidy as capital receipt to the extent of Rs. 5,05,37,447/- 5. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified in not dealing with the ground that the assessment has been framed by the Ld. Assessing Officer by ignoring basic principle of natural justice relying on the statements of various persons and data without affording any opportunity to cross examine such persons, thus, making the assessment bad in law by treating the same to be general in nature. 6. That the order dated 27-01-2019 passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-3,Gurgaon is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer in not allowing set off of any unabsorbed depreciation and current year's business loss against the additions made u/s 68 and 69C of the Act. 11 8. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 and appeal filed by the Assessee, M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited for the A.Y’s. 2010-11 to 2014-15 have become infructous, in view of the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company Law Tribunal(NCLT) vide its order dt. 05/09/2019 which was subsequently approved by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) vide order dt. 17/02/2020. 9. It was submitted that in view of the binding nature of the Resolution Plan as approved which has over riding effect on the Income Tax proceedings, there remain no basis for continuation of present Income Tax proceeding in the case of Bhushan Power & Steel Limited for the period prior to the effective date which has been defined in the resolution plan to mean the date on which JSW, the successful resolution applicant takes over the operation of the assessee company i.e; 26/03/2021. 10. It was submitted that in view of the settled legal position as well as the fact and circumstances of the present case, the appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y. 2009-10 is not sustainable and demand raised in A.Y. 2012-13 against the assessee company is also not collectible and in view of the same following the order of the NCLT, the assessee company does not press ground raised in its appeal for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2014-15 and the same may be treated as withdrawn in view of the decision of the NCLT. 11. It was further submitted that all these appeals may kindly be set aside to the AO with a direction to nullify the demand for A.Y 2012-13 and issue refund to the assessee if any after commencement of the CIRP Proceedings. 12. Further, reliance was placed on the written submission and the contents thereof read as under: 12 “The appeal for AY 2009-10 was filed by the revenue on 10/01/2019 against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) - 3, Gurgaon as per grounds raised in form 36. The appeal for AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 were filed by assessee company on 12/04/2019 against the order passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeal) - 3, Gurgaon as per grounds raised in form 36. 1. THAT, by reason of the averments outlined hereinafter, the above appeals have now become infructuous: (i) Pursuant to application filed by the Punjab National Bank titled, Punjab National Bank vs. Bhushan Power and Steel Limited [C.A. No.254/2019] under section 7 of the IBC, the National Company Law Tribunal ("NCLT"), Principal Bench, New Delhi admitted the petition for commencement of CIRP on 26.07.2017. As a consequence, moratorium was issued on that date in terms of section 14 of the IBC on the date of admission of the application by the NCLT. (ii) Consequently, BPSL, on 28.07.2017 made public announcement as per provisions of IBC inviting creditors to submit proof of their claims on or before 09.08.2017. (iii) During the CIRP, the Income Tax Department filed its statement of claim vide letter dated 23.08.2017 before the Resolution Professional raising a total claim of Rs.277,13,55,962/- along with interest u/s 220(2) chargeable till date of payment for AY 2012-13. iv) JSW Steel Ltd. ("JSW", the successor-in-interest of BPSL and the applicant herein) submitted its final Resolution Plan on 08.02.2018 along with addendum letter dated 10.10.2018 (collectively referred to herein as "Resolution Plan"). (v) After going through extensive process in accordance with the procedure laid down under the IBC, involving, inter alia various rounds of biddings, meetings, approvals and after complying with the provisions of IBC, the Resolution plan filed by JSW was approved by NCLT vide order dated 05.09.2019 which was thereafter confirmed/ approved by Hon'ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi ("NCLAT") vide order dated 17.02.2020. (vi) Pertinently, an intimation regarding pendency of insolvency proceedings before the Hon'ble NCLT was made to the income-tax department by the Resolution Professional vide letter dated 20.03.2019, submitted on 25.03.2019. (vii) In terms of the Resolution Plan, the "effective date" was defined to mean the date of implementation of the resolution plan, i.e., the date on which JSW, the successful resolution applicant, takes control over the operations of the Petitioner, being 26.03.2021. (viii) That the salient features of the approved Resolution Plan may briefly be set out as hereunder: 13 (a) The Resolution Plan as submitted by JSW which contained, inter-alia, the business plan and financial proposal as well as the comprehensive proposal for payments to various financial and operational creditors; (b) Clause 1.4(iii) of the Resolution Plan clearly stated that any or all other claims or demands or liabilities or obligations owed or payable to any operational creditor, including but not limited to any demand already accrued/ accruing, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystalized or un-crystalized, etc. in relation to the period prior to the "Effective Date" will be written off in full and shall, in accordance with Regulation 37 of the CIRP Regulations, be deemed to be permanently extinguished by virtue of approval of the Resolution Plan. (c) Clause 1.6 of the Resolution Plan specifically dealt with "Outstanding Government Dues, Taxes, etc." which, inter-alia, provided as under: (i) There is no liquidation value owing in respect of outstanding government dues, tax and other liabilities of the company and accordingly, NIL amount is payable against crystalized government dues and taxes; (ii) All claims or demands made by, or liabilities or obligations, owed or payable to, whether assessed or not by the Central Government, State Government or any Regulatory Authority in relation to any direct or indirect taxes (whether assessed or not), whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or un-asserted, crystalized or uncrystallised, known or unknown, etc., in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date shall be written off in full and shall be deemed to be permanently extinguished; (iii) Specifically, clause (vi) of para 1.6 of the Resolution Plan provided that, all dues under the provisions of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (as amended from time to time) ("Income-tax Act"), including taxes, duties, penalties, interest fines, cesses, charges, unpaid tax deducted at source or tax collected at source (including without limitation, the income tax dues set out in Annexure 2 (Details of Contingent Liabilities) and Annexure 4 (Details of Company Litigation) whether admitted or not, due or contingent, whether or not set out in the Provisional Balance Sheet, the balance sheets of the Company or the profit and loss account statements of the Company or the List of Creditors, asserted or unasserted, assessed or not, crystallized or uncrystallised, known or unknown, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, present or feature, in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or arising on account of the acquisition of control by Resolution Applicant over the Company pursuant to this Resolution Plan other than as specifically provided in this Resolution Plan, shall, in accordance with Regulation 37 of the CIRP Regulations, stand extinguished by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and the Company shall not be liable to pay any amount against such dues. All notices, assessments, appellate or other proceedings pending or threatened in relation to the Company, in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date or arising on account of the acquisition of control by the Resolution Applicant over the Company pursuant to this Resolution Plan or on account of the measures contemplate under this Resolution Plan, shall stand terminated and withdrawn and all consequential liabilities, if any, shall, in accordance with Regulation 37 of 14 the CIRP Regulations, stand extinguished and be considered as not payable by the Company by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan and any re-assessment, revision or other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act would be deemed to be barred in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date, by virtue of the order of the NCLT approving this Resolution Plan (other than for any liability or proceedings, that are criminal in nature, for which the Hon'ble NCLT does not provide any relief) and the Company, the Resolution Applicant, Hold Co and the SPV shall at no point of time be, directly or indirectly, held responsible or liable in relation thereto". (emphasis supplied) (ix) As a result, the Resolution Plan, as approved, shall be binding on the corporate debtor, its creditors, guarantors, members, employees and other stakeholders. In view of the aforesaid orders of the NCLT/ NCLAT approving the Resolution, particularly in view of the overriding provisions of the IBC, there was complete: (a) extinguishment of all existing/ outstanding liabilities of operational creditors, including but not limited to government dues on account of direct and indirect taxes in relation to the period prior to the effective date. The said liabilities not only included crystalized/ determined/ascertained liabilities but also covered any contingent, unascertained, unasserted, unknown, undisputed or future liabilities in relation to the period prior to the effective date. (b) Further, in terms of the payment mechanism as set-out in the Resolution Plan, the income-tax department, being one of the operational creditors, was not entitled to receive anything in accordance with the waterfall mechanism under section 53 of the IBC. The Income-tax Department was also barred from raising any further demand/ liability in relation to the period prior to the effective date; (b) bar/ prohibition on initiation and/ or continuation of any pending and/ or threatened and/ or future assessment or reassessment proceedings in relation to the period prior to the effective date. The Resolution Plan specifically provided that all notices, assessments or other proceedings pending or threatened in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date shall stand terminated and withdrawn and also specifically barred initiation of any fresh "re-assessment, revision or other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act", which shall, under the approved Resolution Plan, be "deemed to be barred in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date", (x) In terms of the said resolution plan, all claims and liabilities, existing and/ or contingent, of BPSL towards the Income Tax Department, including those arising out of the captioned writ petition, prior to the effective date (i.e., 26.03.2021) stand settled/ covered. Once the outstanding liabilities qua the Income Tax Department have been covered under the Resolution Plan, then no demand arising out of above appeal survives. (4) THAT it is trite law that in terms of section 31 and 238 of the IBC, the approved Resolution Plan is binding on all creditors and stakeholders, including the Central Government and the Income Tax Department. The salient features of the provisions of the IBC may, for the sake of completeness, be summarized as under: 15 (a) IBC was codified to consolidate and amend the laws relating to re- organisation and insolvency resolution of corporate persons in a time bound manner for maximisation of value of assets; (b) The 'Statement of Objects and Reasons' for introduction of IBC echoed the aforesaid intent, which, inter alia, provided as under: 2. 2. The objective of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2015 is to consolidate and amend the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporate persons, partnership firms and individuals in a time bound manner for maximization of value of assets of such persons, to promote entrepreneurship, availability of credit and balance the interests of all the stakeholders including: alteration in the priority of payment of government dues and to establish an Insolvency and Bankruptcy Fund, and matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. An effective legal framework for timely resolution of insolvency and bankruptcy would support development of credit markets and encourage entrepreneurship. It would also improve Ease of Doing Business, and facilitate more investments leading to higher economic growth and development". (emphasis supplied) (c) IBC was introduced to ensure revival of financially stressed companies in a time bound manner by consolidating and amending the laws relating to reorganization and insolvency resolution of corporates, for maximization of value of its assets and balancing the interests of all stakeholders, including alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government dues. (d) The resolution process under IBC involves various parties, viz., (i) Corporate Debtor which is the corporate defaulter; (ii) Resolution Applicant(s) being the group/ entity filing a resolution plan to acquire and revive the business of the corporate debtor; (iii) Creditors, financial and operational, to whom debt is owed by the corporate debtor; (e) The resolution process under the IBC involves, inter alia, (i) competitive bidding for the corporate debtor by the resolution applicants; (ii) takeover and subsequent continuance of the business of the corporate debtor by the successful resolution applicant/ bidder; (iii) full and final settlement of all claims relating to the period prior to the CIRP; (f) Under section 3(6) of the IBC, the expression "claim" is defined in its widest form to mean right to payment arising out of breach of contract or otherwise, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, fixed, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured or unsecured; (g)CIRP process involves making of public announcement for inviting claims so as to call every creditor to file all possible claims, even if disputed, against the corporate debtor, in order for the same to be considered appropriately under the CIRP process; (h) IBC recognizes two types of creditors, viz., "financial creditors" and "operational creditors". Financial creditors are primarily parties to whom 16 loans and interest thereon is due. Tax dues are however categorized as "operational debts" in terms of section 5(21) of IBC and the Tax Department, accordingly, falls in the category of "operational creditor"; (i) Tax dues, despite being a sovereign debt, does not enjoy priority over dues of the other operational creditors, which is also in line with one of the stated legislative intents set out in the preamble to the IBC, being "alteration in the order of priority of payment of Government Dues..."; (j) Section 53 of the IBC provides waterfall mechanism for payment to financial and operational creditors; (k) As per section 31(1) of IBC, approved resolution plan is binding on the corporate debtor, employees, members, creditors, guarantors, and other stakeholders including Central Government/ State Government/ statutory authority to whom a debt in respect of payment of dues arising under any law is owed; (I) Section 238 clearly provides that the provisions of IBC shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent contained in any other law including the Act; (m) Section 32A ring fences the corporate debtor even from criminal proceedings against offences committed by previous management/ promoters. (n) IBC, in substance, provides clean slate to the successful resolution applicant. (5) THAT the supremacy of the approved Resolution Plan and the legislative intent of giving a clean slate theory to the successful resolution applicant is also evident from the debate in Rajya Sabha, the Upper House of the Parliament, on 29.07.2019, wherein various questions/ issues were raised relating to the proposed amendments in the IBC law, which were duly addressed by the Hon'ble Finance Minister as under: "SHRIMATINIRMALA SITHARAMAN: ......................... Shri Ravindra Kumar had said that the period of limitation should be there. Section 238A introduced on 6th June 2018 provides for applicability of the Limitation Act of 1963. So that is taken care of. I now respond to the five points which Shri Jairam Ramesh made as the concluding remark. What happens if the successful bidder does not pursue? The regulations introduced on 24th January of 2019 require performance security before approval by adjudicating authority. Criminal prosecution is also possible. If somebody who has successfully claimed that he could come up with a thing and then bids for it and later does not show up, in that case, criminal prosecution is permissible. (Contd. by VKK/4N) SHRIMATI NIRMALA SITHARAMAN (CONTD.): IBC has actually an overriding effect. For instance, you asked whether IBC will override SEBI. Section 238 provides that IBC will prevail in case of inconsistency between two laws. Actually. Indian courts will have to decide, in specific cases, depending upon the material before them, but, largely, yes, it is IBC. Then, on individual insolvency you spoke of MSME promoters and so on. Rules and regulations in respect of personal guarantors to corporate debtors are ready. We would be operationalising them soon. There are 17 two other categories, proprietors and partnership firms, which would also come in the realm that you are talking about, and other individuals would be done in a phased manner, but we are making provision for all of them. There is also this guestion about indemnity for successful resolution applicant. The amendment now is clearly making it binding on the Government. It is one of the ways in which we are providing that. The Government will not raise any further claim. The Government will not make any further claim after resolution plan is approved. So, that is going to be a major, major sense of assurance for the people who are using the resolution plan. Criminal matters alone would be proceeded against individuals and not company. There will be no criminal proceedings against successful resolution applicant. There will be no criminal proceedings against successful resolution applicant for fraud by previous promoters. So, I hope that is absolutely clear. I would want all the hon. Members to recognize this message and communicate further that this Code, therefore, gives that comfort to all new bidders. So, now, they need not be scared that the taxman will come after them for the faults of the earlier promoters. No. Once the resolution plan is accepted, the earlier promoters will be dealt with as individuals for their criminality but not the new bidder who is trying to restore the company. So, that is very clear. " (emphasis supplied) (6) THAT the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Verghese vs. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 (SC) held that speech of the mover of the Bill can certainly be referred to for ascertaining the legislative intent. The Hon'ble Court observed as under: "Now it is true that the speeches made by the Members of the Legislature on the floor of the House when a Bill for enacting a statutory provision is being debated are inadmissible for the purpose of interpreting the statutory provision but the speech made by the mover of the Bill explaining the reason for the introduction of the Bill can certainly be referred to for the purpose of ascertaining the mischief sought to be remedied by the legislation and the object and purpose for which the legislation is enacted." (emphasis supplied) (7) THAT the aforesaid clearly demonstrates the intent/ purport of the statute inasmuch as it is abundantly clear that the successful resolution applicant is given a clean slate to revive the corporate debtor, with the Government not raising any further claim after the approval of the resolution plan. (8) THAT the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Innoventive Industries Limited vs. ICICI Bank (2018) 1 SCC 407, being the first case relating to IBC, elaborately explained the provisions of the said Code. The Apex Court categorically held that the provisions of IBC have overriding effect over provisions of other Acts/ laws. The relevant extracts/ observations are reproduced as under: "33. Under Section 30, any person who is interested in putting the corporate body back on its feet may submit a resolution plan to the resolution professional, which is prepared on the basis of an information memorandum. This plan must provide 18 for payment of insolvency resolution process costs, management of the affairs of the corporate debtor after approval of the plan, and implementation and supervision of the plan. It is only when such plan is approved by a vote of not less than 75% of the voting share of the financial creditors and the adjudicating authority is satisfied that the plan, as approved, meets the statutory requirements mentioned in Section 30, that it ultimately approves such plan, which is then binding on the corporate debtor as well as its employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders. Importantly, and this is a major departure from previous legislation on the subject, the moment the adjudicating authority approves the resolution plan, the moratorium order passed by the authority under Section 14 shall cease to have effect. The scheme of the Code, therefore, is to make an attempt, by divesting the erstwhile management of its powers and vesting it in a professional agency, to continue the business of the corporate body as a going concern until a resolution plan is drawn up, in which event the management is handed over under the plan so that the corporate body is able to pay back its debts and get back on its feet 55. It is clear, therefore, that the earlier State law is repugnant to the later Parliamentary enactment as under the said State law, the State Government may take over the management of the relief undertaking, after which a temporary moratorium in much the same manner as that contained in Sections 13 and 14 of the Code takes place under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act. There is no doubt that by giving effect to the State law, the aforesaid plan or scheme which may be adopted under the Parliamentary statute will directly be hindered and/or obstructed to that extent in that the management of the relief undertaking, which, if taken over by the State Government, would directly impede or come in the way of the taking over of the management of the corporate body by the interim resolution professional. Also, the moratorium imposed under Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act would directly clash with the moratorium to be issued under Sections 13 and 14 of the Code. It will be noticed that whereas the moratorium imposed under the Maharashtra Act is discretionary and may relate to one or more of the matters contained in Section 4(1), the moratorium imposed under the Code relates to all matters listed in Section 14 and follows as a matter of course. In the present case it is clear, therefore, that unless the Maharashtra Act is out of the way, the Parliamentary enactment will be hindered and obstructed in such a manner that it will not be possible to go 98 ahead with the insolvency resolution process outlined in the Code. Further, the non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act cannot possibly be held to apply to the Central enactment, inasmuch as a matter of constitutional law, the later Central enactment being repugnant to the earlier State enactment by virtue of Article 254 (1), would operate to render the Maharashtra Act void vis-avis action taken under the later Central enactment. Also, Section 238 of the Code reads as under: "Sec. 238. Provisions of this Code to override other laws.- The provisions of this Code shall have effect, notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law for the time being in force or any instrument having effect by virtue of any such law." It is clear that the later non-obstante clause of the Parliamentary enactment will also prevail over the limited non-obstante clause contained in Section 4 of the Maharashtra Act. For these reasons, we are of the view that the Maharashtra Act cannot stand in the way of the corporate insolvency resolution process under the Code." 19 (emphasis supplied) (9) THAT in the case of CIT vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Limited (2018) 18 SCC 786, the Apex Court reiterated that the provisions of IBC would override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment including the IT Act. The relevant extracts/ observations are reproduced as under: "Delay, if any, is condoned. Given Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income-Tax Act. We may also refer in this Connection to Dena Bank vs. Bhikhabhai Prabhudas Parekh and Co. & Ors. (2000) 5 SCC 694 and its progeny, making it clear that income-tax dues, being in the nature of Crown debts, do not take precedence even over secured creditors, who are private persons. We are of the view that the High Court of Delhi, is, therefore, correct in law. Accordingly, the Special Leave Petitions are dismissed." (emphasis supplied) (10) THAT the issue relating to enforceability of dues owed to the Government, including statutory dues, is no longer res integra, and stands settled by the ruling of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanashyam Mishra And Sons Private Limited vs. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company (2021) 9 SCC 657, wherein the Apex Court, inter alia, held that all the dues owed to Central and State Government including dues to statutory authority (including income tax), whether or not forming part of resolution plan, shall upon approval by the adjudicating authority ('NCLT'), stands extinguished and no proceeding in respect of such dues can be initiated/ continued against the corporate debtor. The concluding observations of the Court are, for the sake of ready reference, reproduced hereunder: "CONCLUSION 1. In the result, we answer the questions framed by us as under: (i) That once a resolution plan is duly approved by the Adjudicating Authority under sub- section (1) of Section 31, the claims as provided in the resolution plan shall stand frozen and will be binding on the Corporate Debtor and its employees, members, creditors, including the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, guarantors and other stakeholders. On the date of approval of resolution plan by the Adjudicating Authority, all such claims, which are not a part of resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no person will be entitled to initiate or continue any proceedings in respect to a claim, which is not part of the resolution plan; (ii) 2019 amendment to Section 31 of the l&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which l&B Code has come into effect; (iii) Conseguently all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, any State Government or any local authority, if not part of the resolution plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings in respect of such 20 dues for the period prior to the date on which the Adjudicating Authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued. 138. It is further to be noted, that the Income Tax Authorities had approached this Court with respect to income tax dues concerning the present petitioner by way of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.6483 of 2018. This Court passed the following order in the said Special Leave Petition on 10.8.2018 139. In ordinary course, we would not have entertained such a petition directly under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, a question of law, which arises for consideration in the present petition has been considered by us in this batch of matters. In that view of the matter, we find, that it would not be in the interest of justice to nonsuit the present petitioner, when we have specifically decided question of law, which would govern the present case also. As such, the present petition is allowed. 140. We hold and declare, that the respondents are not entitled to recover any claims or claim any debts owed to them from the Corporate Debtor accruing prior to the transfer date. Needless to state, that the consequences thereof shall follow." (emphasis supplied) (11) THAT it has been repeatedly held that the CIRP embodies the clean/ fresh slate theory: • In Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Limited vs. Satish Kumar Gupta (2020) 8 SCC 531, the Apex Court observed as under: "Section 31(1) of the Code makes it clear that once a resolution plan is approved by the Committee of Creditors it shall be binding on all stakeholders, including guarantors. This is for the reason that this provision ensures that the successful resolution applicant starts running the business of the corporate debtor on a fresh slate as it were For the same reason, the impugned NCLAT judgment in holding that claims that may exist apart from those decided on merits by the resolution professional and by the Adjudicating Authority/Appellate Tribunal can now be decided by an appropriate forum in terms of Section 60(6) of the Code, also militates against the rationale of Section 31 of the Code. A successful resolution applicant cannot suddenly be faced with "undecided" claims after the resolution plan submitted by him has been accepted as this would amount to a hydra head popping up which would throw into uncertainty amounts payable by a prospective resolution applicant who successfully take over the business of the corporate debtor. All claims must be submitted to and decided by the resolution professional so that a prospective resolution applicant knows exactly what has to be paid in order that it may then take over and run the business of the corporate debtor. This the successful resolution applicant does on a fresh slate, as has been pointed out by us hereinabove. For these reasons, the NCLAT judgment must also be set aside on this count." (emphasis supplied) • In CIT vs. Jet Airways (India) Limited [2021] 133 taxmann.com 233 (SC), the Apex Court observed as under: 21 "In a nutshell what has been opined is that all Government authorities are also bound by a Resolution Plan once it is approved by the adjudicating authority under sub-section (1) of section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016." • In Ultra Tech Nathdwara Cement Limited vs. Union of India 2020 SCC OnLine Raj 1097, the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that no demands can be raised for a period prior to the approval of resolution plan, and after the resolution plan is successfully executed. The relevant observations are as follows: "The purpose of the statute is very clear that it intends to revive the dying industry by providing an opportunity to a resolution applicant to take over the same and begin the operation on a clean slate. For that purpose, the evaluation of all dues and liabilities as they exist on the date of finalization of the resolution plan have been left in the exclusive domain of the resolution professional with the approval of the COC. The courts are given an extremely limited power of judicial review into the resolution plan duly approved by the COC." (emphasis supplied) • In the case of Leo Edibles and Fats Limited vs. TRO [2018] 259 Taxman 387 (AP), the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the Income-tax Department cannot claim any priority in payment from liquidation assets merely because the IT Department has issued attachment order prior to initiation of liquidation proceedings under IBC. It has been held that Income-tax Department is not at par with the secured creditors and must necessarily take resort to distribution of the liquidation assets as per section 53 of IBC and cannot be given any priority. • To the similar effect is the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Telangana in the case of Sirpur Paper Mills Limited vs. Union of India 2022 SCC OnLine TS 130. (12) Ld DR relied upon the decision of Apex Court in case of State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd. (CA No. 1661 of 2020) wherein the Apex Court after considering provision of section 48 of the Gujarat Value Added Tax (GVAT) held that State is a secured creditor under GVAT Act and section 3(30) of the IBC defines secured creditor to mean a creditor in favour of whom security interest ins credited. The Apex Court while setting asiding the resolution plan to NCLAT, held that claim of the state should be considered before approving any resolution plan. The said decision of Apex Court has no applicability in the impugned matter for the following reasons: - (1) In the above case the GVAT dept. raised their claim after last date hence NCLT and NCLAT did not admit the said claim (para 16 & 17 of the order), but in the case of assessee the claim of the dept. of Rs. 277.13 crore was duly considered by the resolution professional and terms of settlement was provided on page 116 of NCLT order. (2) The Apex Court has considered provisions of section 48 of the GVAT Act and held that due to specific provision in the GVAT act about secured creditor, the provisions of section 53 of IBC do not override the same. (Para 55 of the order). However, under Income Tax Act, there is no such similar provisions. On the 22 contrary vide Finance Act, 2022, a new section 156A was inserted to give effect of the order of NCLT. (3) Lastly the GVAT authority in the above case challenged the order of NCLT before NCLAT and subsequently before Supreme Court but in this case the Income Tax Department has not challenged the order of NCLT before any higher authority. Hence, as on date the said order of NCLT is binding on them. (13) THAT considering the above settled legal position may, thus, be summarized as under: (a) Section 30 of the IBC provides that the plan should provide for repayment of debts of operational creditors in such a manner that the same shall not be less than the amount to be paid in the event of liquidation of the corporate debtor under section 53 of the IBC; (b) Section 31 categorically provides that the resolution plan approved by the NCLT is binding on the corporate debtor, employees, members, creditors, guarantors and other stakeholders including the Central Government/ State Government/ statutory authority; (c) The provisions of the IBC have been given supremacy/ overriding effect over other prevalent laws in as much as section 238 categorically provides that the provisions of IBC shall have effect notwithstanding anything contrary/ inconsistent contained in any other law for the time being in force; (d) CIRP embodies in itself the clean/ fresh slate theory, whereby the entire claims, whether raised or not, disputed or undisputed, existing or future, contingent or ascertained, asserted or un-asserted, etc., relating to the period prior to the CIRP date, are finally settled at the value stated in the resolution plan and all the balance claim/ liabilities stand completely extinguished; (e) As a necessary corollary, it is not open to any creditor, be any financial or operational creditor, including any governmental authority such as the Income- tax Department to continue/ persist/ initiate any proceedings relating to any period prior to the CIRP date as mentioned in the approved resolution plan; (f) No income tax demand/ liability relating to the period prior to CIRP date as mentioned in the approved resolution date can be recovered/ claimed against the corporate debtor and no proceedings in respect of such dues could even be initiated, continued or completed; (g) Initiation, continuation and completion of any proceedings under the provisions of the Act, be it assessment or reassessment or revision or appeal, etc., relating to any period prior to the CIRP date as mentioned in the approved resolution plan shall, being contrary to the overriding mandate of IBC, be wholly without jurisdiction and void ab initio. (14) THAT in the present case the Resolution Plan, as approved by the NCLT vide order dated 05.09.2019, and confirmed/ approved by the NCLAT vide order dated 17.02.2020, clearly/ categorically/ authoritatively provides as under: 23 (i) Part B, being Financial Proposal, provides that NIL amount was payable against the government dues and taxes in relation to the period prior to the effective date; (ii) Various clauses, in particular clauses 1.4(iii) and 1.6, categorically states that any or all other claims or demands or liabilities, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, asserted or unasserted, crystalized or uncrystallised, present or future, etc., including direct and indirect taxes, in relation to the period prior to the "Effective Date" will be written off in full and shall be deemed to the permanently extinguished; (iii) Clause (vi) of para 1.6 of the Resolution Plan specifically provides that all notices or assessments pending or threatened in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date shall stand terminated and withdrawn and any re-assessment, revision or other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act would be deemed to be barred in relation to any period prior to the Effective Date; (iv) There shall be complete extinguishment of all existing/ outstanding liabilities of operational creditors, including but not limited to the claims/ liabilities of the Income Tax Department in relation to the period prior to the effective date; (v) There shall be a complete bar/ prohibition on initiation and/ or continuation of any assessment or reassessment proceedings in relation to the period prior to the effective date and any fresh re-assessment, revision or other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act shall be deemed to be barred. (15) THAT having regard to the aforesaid terms of the binding Resolution Plan, there remains no basis for continuation of any income tax proceedings in the case of BPSL for the period prior to the "effective date", including, but not limited to the captioned appeal by revenue as well as by assessee for assessment years 2009-10 to 2014-15. (16) Hon'ble Kolkata ITAT taking the cognizance of above legal position in case of Palogix Infrastructure P. Ltd. [193 ITD 329] held as under: - "11. The order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal under section 31 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 has overriding effect over anything inconsistent contained in the Income-tax Act and it shall be binding on all the respective entities including other stakeholders, which include Central Government, State Government and other Local Bodies. As per the said order delivered in the case of the assessee-company affirming the Resolution Plan, all dues under the provisions of the Income-tax Act including taxes, duty, penalties, interest, fines, cesses, unpaid tax deducted at source/tax collected at source, whether admitted or not, due or contingent, whether part of above claim of income tax authorities or not, whether part of tax due diligence finding or not, asserted or unasserted, crystallized or uncrystallized, known or unknown, secured or unsecured, disputed or undisputed, present or future, in relation to any period prior to the acquisition of control by the resolution applicant over the company pursuant to this plan shall be extinguished by virtue of the order of the adjudicating authority and the company should not be liable to pay any amount against such demand. Further, all assessments or other proceedings pending in 24 case of the company, on the date of the order of the adjudicating authority relating to the period prior to that date, shall stand terminated and all consequential liabilities, if any, should be deleted and should be considered to be not payable by the company by virtue of the order of the adjudicating authority. Furthermore, all notices proposing to initiate any proceedings against the company in relation to the period prior to the date of adjudicating authority order and pending on that date, shall be considered deleted and should not be proceeded against. Post the order of the adjudicating authority, no reassessment/revision or any other proceedings under the provisions of the Income-tax Act should be initiated on the company in relation to period prior to acquisition of control by the resolution applicant over the company pursuant to this plan and the assessee-company should not be liable to pay against such demand. 12. Since the present appeal involving assessment year 2010-11 relates to the period prior to the acquisition of control by the Resolution Applicant over the assessee-company pursuant to this plan, all dues under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 including taxes, duty, penalties, interest fines, cesses, etc. shall stand extinguished by virtue of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal and all proceedings including the appellate proceedings pending on the date of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal including the present proceedings relating to the prior period to the date of order shall stand extinguished and all consequential liabilities, if any, should be deleted and should be considered to be not payable by the company. In the light of the order of the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) dated 12-2-2018 passed in assessee's case, it would be fit to restore the case for the assessment year under consideration to Assessing Officer for taking necessary action in accordance with law." (17) Thus, on the strength of the afore-stated facts and legal position, the appeal filed by Revenue for AY 2009-10 is not sustainable and demand raised in AY 2012- 13 in the case of assessee company is not collectible. Accordingly, respectfully following the order of NCLT the assessee company do not press ground raised in its appeal for AY 2010-11 to 2014-15 and Hon'ble Bench may treat the same as withdrawn due to NCLT order. Your Honours are also requested to kindly set aside these appeals to the assessing officer with a direction to nullify the demand for AY 2012-13 and issue refund of the amount recovered, if any, after commencement of the CIRP proceeding. It may be noted that there is no demand in other years as the taxes were paid U/s 115JB and even after addition there is no tax liability under normal provisions of the Act. Hon'ble Bench is also requested to pass such order(s) as the may deem proper and just in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 13. Per contra, the Ld. CIT DR submitted that the assessee in its submission have talked about the non- maintainability of the appeals, in view of the NCLT order which has subsequently been approved by the NCLAT and has also talked about extinguished of due of the Department by virtue of order of NCLT. In this regard, copy of the report received from the office of the PCIT (Central) Gurgaon dt. 12/10/2022 was submitted and the contents thereof read as under: 25 “Sub:- Appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT, Bench-A, Chandigarh in the following cases - request for comments – Sr. No. ITA No. A.Y. Appeal filed by Name of the case 1. ITA36/CHANDI/2019 2009-10 D DCIT vs Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Chd 2. ITA 467/CHANDI/2019 2010-11 3. ITA468/CHANDI/2019 2011-12 4. ITA469/CHANDI/2019 2012-13 A M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Chd 5. ITA470/CHANDI/2019 2013-14 6. ITA 471/CHANDI/2019 2014-15 Kindly refer to your office letter No. 667 dated 29.09.2022 on above noted subject. 2. In this regard, I am directed to submit that vide above referred letter, your good self has sought comments in view of asessee's submission before the Hon'ble ITAT on the following issues: A. The maintainability of appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT in view of order of NCLT dated 05.09.2019 and order of Hon'ble NCLAT dated 17.02.2020. B. The dues of the Department stand extinguished by virtue of order of NCLT. 3. In this regard, it is submitted that both the issues are interrelated issues and the outcome of different interpretation of the order of insolvency resolution proceedings by the assessee and by the Department. The insolvency process was initiated on 26.07.2017 in the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) and accordingly, in response to the public announcement inviting claims during the Corporate Insolvency Process under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016, the Department lodged its claim of Rs.277,13,55,962/-[/br AY 2012-13Jwhich was the demand as on the said date, before Sh. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, the Interim Resolution Professional in August, 2017. The Department's claim was also raised online in December, 2017. 3.1 Further, the Resolution Professional, Sh. Mahender Khandelwal intimated that Resolution Plan submitted by JSW Steel Limited has been approved by Committee of Creditors under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and the said plan has been placed before NCLT. The NCLT vide its order dated 05.09.2019 accepted the Resolution Plan. 3.2 Consequent upon order passed by the NCLT, a letter was issued to assessee asking the assessee to deposit the outstanding demand as per Resolution Plan in October, 2019. The assessee replied in January, 2020 and requested for stay of demand on the ground that it had filed appeal before National Company law Appellate Tribunal(NCLAT), New Delhi against the order passed by NCLT. Further, the Hon'ble NCLAT upheld the decision of NCLT vide its order dated 17.02.2020. 26 3.3 The assessee filed a letter in June, 2020 stating that as per the orders passed by NCLAT and as per Resolution Plan of JSW Steel that was accepted by NCLT, the IT department is eligible for recovery of only 10% of v the principal amount (excluding any interest and penalty amounts) that too if the demand is crystallized within a period of 2 years from date of approval of this Resolution Plan by CoC. If the demand is crystallized, the Department will get a maximum of Rs. 18.88 Crores only (10% of principal amount of demand raised) and since the department had already adjusted about Rs. 75 crores out of various refunds, the assessee is eligible for the refund of about Rs. 57 Crores. The assessee's stand is that by virtue of NCLT and NCLAT orders, all the pending claims/demands and pending litigations against the assessee pertaining to period prior to effect date shall stand extinguished, pending proceedings will be deemed to have been withdrawn or dismissed or terminated and liabilities or obligations in relation thereto will be deemed to have been written off in full and permanently extinguished. 3.4 Since, the Department never received copy of Resolution Plan approved by the CoC and accepted by the NCLT and not interfered with by the NCLAT, further clarification regarding 'status of the Department's claim and proceedings for outstanding recovery' was sought from Sh. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, (Resolution Professional in the case) on 05.06.2020 and 29.06.2020 by the DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh. However, no reply was received from Sh. Khandelwal. As such, a letter was written to Executive Director, Insolvency & Bankruptcy Board of India for pursuing the matter and direct Sh. Mahender Khandelwal to report the status to the Department. 3.5 Thereafter, a letter dated 28.10.2020 was received through email from Sh. B. Sankaranarayanan, Dy. GM, IBBI stating that copy of letter of RP is enclosed. However, the relevant enclosure, i.e. copy of letter dated 18.06.2020 claimed to have been sent by Resolution Professional to this office was not actually provided with the said email. Therefore, in response to the said email, DCIT, CC-1, Chandigarh made another request to IBBI to provide a copy of RP's letter dated 18.06.2020 under reference. Copy of email is reproduced as under for kind reference: 27 However, no satisfactory reply was received. Subsequently, another email dated 03.11.2020 was written which is also reproduced below: 3.6 In view of above facts and circumstances, it is firstly submitted that true and complete picture of the case has never been available for consideration of the assessing officer. It would not be out of place to mention here that the Disciplinary Committee of the INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY BOARD OF INDIA vide its order No. IBBI/DC/112/2022 13 th July,2022 suspended the registration of Mr. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal for a period of two years as he has been found guilty of contravention of provisions of the Code and Regulations made thereunder while discharging his duties as a Resolution Professional in the instant case filed by Punjab National Bank under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (Code) for initiating Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)against Bhushan Power and Steel Limited (CD). 3.7 A perusal of the IBBI order No. IBBI/DC/112/2022 13 th July,2022 (copy enclosed) reveals that he has been tried and found guilty on a number of counts by the IBBI. The IBBI has even cast a doubt on his intent which is clear from summary findings given in Para-3.18.1 of the IBBI's order. The relevant extract reads as "...It was his duty under section 30 of the Code to ensure that the resolution plan does not contravene any provision of the Law. His failure to do so casts doubt on his intentions when seen in conjunction with the fact that he was 28 the beneficiary of such omission...". Seen in this light, a doubt is cast on the integrity on the conduct of Sh. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, as Resolution Professional in the instant case. Hence, it cannot be ruled out that the Resolution Plan was intentionally not provided to the Income-tax Department by Sh. Mahender Kumar Khandelwal, the Resolution Professional. 4. As regards assessee's interpretation of the outcome of the Insolvency Resolution proceedings on the recoverability of dues by the Income-tax Department, it is submitted that the assessee's various claims in its application under reference are based on incomplete/partial facts taken selectively by the assessee from NCLT/NCLAT orders. At the outset, following points are also brought to your notice: Kind attention is invited to Para 128(g) of the NCLT order dated 05.09.2019(copy enclosed), a perusal of which clearly reveals that no relief has been granted with respect to the liabilities of the assessee towards Income tax department. Therefore, claim of the assessee is not tenable. The content of the paragraph is reproduced as under:- "Various reliefs sought front the statutory authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961. Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Department of Registration and Stamps, Reserve Bank of India and others are also disposed of we do not feel persuaded to accept the player made in the resolution plan yet the resolution plan applicant may file appropriate applications before the competent authorities which would be considered in accordance with law because it would not be competent for the Adjudicating Authorily-NCLT to enter into any such area for granting relaxation, concession or waiver is wholly within the domain of competent authorities. " As observed from above, the NCLT had in fact disagreed with the approved Resolution Plan of CoC and has stated that the competent authorities [i.e. Income Tax Department] in this case, would look into the matter of payment of statutory taxes/dues being competent authority. Further, NCLAT at para 133(iv) of order dated 17.02.2020 (copy enclosed) has again referred to Resolution Plan as approved by NCLT and what was approved by NCLT w.r.t. statutory dues has be interpreted in light of is at Para 128(g) of the NCLT order dated 05.09.2019. Para 133(iv) of NCLAT order statesthat: "(iv) All penalties, interest, delayed payment charges, any other liabilities for any non-compliance with statutory obligations including taxes, including delays in filing returns or payment of tax dues, against the Company shall stand settled in accordance with the provisions of this plan as approved by NCLT" From the above, it is observed that NCLAT order refers to the Resolution Plan as approved by NCLT. Here, it is also pertinent to note that Resolution Plan was initially approved by Committee gf Creditors and then taken up by NCLT in its order dated 05.09.2019. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee vide letter dated 22.01.2020 stated that M/s JSW Steel has filed an application before NCLAT and sought the 29 deletion of para 128(g) of the NCLT order. The Hon'ble NCLAT in its order dated 17.02.2020 did not interfere with the orders of NCLT in respect of statutory demands outstanding against the assessee. This clearly reveals that para 128(g) of the NCLT order operates against the assessee as relief has been denied to the assessee in respect of matters referred to in the said para 128(g) of the NCLT order. 5. Further, it is submitted that as per the NCLT order, the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel was accepted subject to certain riders as detailed in order of NCLT. Consequent upon the order of NCLT, the assessee was requested by the AO to deposit the outstanding demand of the Income-tax Department. In response, the assessee submitted a letter dated 01.06.2022 along with the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MA 259 of 2022, filed in JSW Ispat Special products Ltd. us State of Orisha and Anr and Judgment in the case of Ghanshaym Mishra. The assessee in its letter requested that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this office has to immediately drop and /or withdraw any demands, notices proceedings, orders or the like issued against the assessee for a period prior to commencement of CIRP and requested that an amount of Rs.75,30,59,704/- which have been recovered/adjusted against the outstanding demand in the case of the assessee shall be refunded at the earliest. Though, as per the discussion made above, it appears that no relief has been granted by the NCLT [Para-128g of the order dated 05.09.2019] and NCLAT [Para- 133(iv) of order dated 17.02.2020] with respect to the liabilities of the assessee towards the Income-tax Department. 5.1 It is further relevant to mention that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 06.09.2022 in the case State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd, the Hon'ble Apex Court (copy enclosed) has equated the Govt. Tax dues with those of other secured creditors. It has been held that the Committee of Creditors which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors cannot secure their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Govt, or Govt. Authorities or for that matter any other dues. 5.2 In view of detailed discussion above, legal opinion from the Sr. Standing Counsel of the Department was also sought, regarding legal implication of orders of NCLT/NCLAT, especially Para 133(iv) of NCLAT order and order of the NCLT, especially Para 128(g) of NCLT order. The Sr. Standing Counsel, Sh. Yogesh Putney, opined that the resolution plan is in contravention of the provisions of IBC, 2016 and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rainbow Papers Ltd. He has further opined that it would be appropriate to invoke Article 32 of the Constitution. It is also further stated that legal opinion was also sought on the issues raised by the assessee before the Hon'ble ITAT and as per the legal opinion (copy enclosed), it would be appropriate to request the Hon'ble ITAT to defer the appeals if the Department takes legal recourse as suggested. 6. In view of above facts as well as legal opinion of the Sr. Standing Counsel, this office is in process to take legal recourse in this case. I am, therefore, directed to request your goodself to request to Hon'ble ITAT to defer the case. 30 14. Further, in the subsequent hearing, the Ld. CIT DR refer to the report of the DCIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh dt. 08/02/2023 and the contents thereof read as under: “Sub: Appeals before the Hon'ble ITAT, Bench-A, Chandigarh in the following cases - request for comments - Sr. No. ITA No. A.Y. Appeal filed by Name of the case 1. ITA36/CHANDI/2019 2009-10 D DClTvs Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Chd ITA467/CHANDI/2019 2010-11 3. ITA468/CHANDI/2019 2011-12 4. ITA469/CHAND1/2019 2012-13 A M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd., Chd S. ITA470/CHAND1/2019 2013-14 6. ITA471/CHANDI/2019 2014-15 Kindly refer to your office letter F.No.CIT(DR)-2/ITAT/Chd/2022-23 dated 24.01.2023 on the above subject wherein it has been directed as under: “... 3. As per submissions, in para 17, the assessee has withdrawn its appeals for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2014-15. I am directed to request you to kindly send your comments in this regard. Since, the assessee is withdrawing the appeal, the department should have no objection (in view of DR-2, ITAT). However, for A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee is asking to nullify the demand also. While dismissing assessee's appeal for A.Y. 2012-13, the Hon'ble ITAT may or may not nullify the demand of the assessee. Depending on the order, recourse to filing an appeal to higher forum can be explored. Therefore, final decision on the submissions in para 17 may be conveyed to this office by 27.01.2023 afternoon, as the case is fixed for hearing before the Hon'ble ITAT on 30.01.2023 (Monday). 4. Further, as per assessee, the departmental appeal for A.Y. 2009-10 is not sustainable, in view of resolution plan. This plea of assessee was contested before the Hon'ble Bench. In case, the bench agrees with the assessee, recourse to filing an appeal to higher forum may be explored. However, comments may be given for sustainability of Departmental appeal in view of Resolution Plan as approved and as it stands now." 2. In this regard, it is submitted as under: i. Regarding withdrawal of appeals by the assessee for the A.Yrs. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15: As per ITAT's noting sheet dated 19.01.2023, the assessee is willing to withdraw its appeals for the AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 and 2014-15. 31 At the outset, it is submitted that these appeals were filed by the assessee and if the assessee wants to withdraw these appeals now, it is prerogative of the assessee to withdraw such appeal. Regarding issue of demand for the AY 2012-13: At the outset, it is submitted that the assessee has repeatedly referred to approved resolution plan for making request for nullifying the demand for AY 2012-13 and the assessee's submission is the result of differential interpretation of the outcome of insolvency resolution proceedings by the assessee and by the Department. It is important to start with the Para 128(g) of the NCLT order dated 05.09.2019, a perusal of which clearly reveals that no relief has been granted with respect to the liabilities of the assessee towards Income tax department. In view of the same, claim of the assessee is not tenable. The content of the paragraph is reproduced as under:- "Various reliefs sought front the statutory authorities under the Income Tax Act, 1961, Ministry of Corporate Affairs, Department of Registration and Stamps, Reserve Bank of India and others are also disposed of we do not feel persuaded to accept the prayer made in the resolution plan yet the resolution plan applicant may file appropriate applications before the competent authorities which would be considered in accordance with law because it would not be competent for the Adjudicating Authority-NCLT to enter into any such area for granting relaxation, concession or waiver is wholly within the domain of competent authorities." As observed from above, the NCLT had in fact disagreed with the approved Resolution Plan of CoC and has stated that the competent authorities [i.e. Income Tax Department] in this case, would look into the matter of payment of statutory taxes/dues being competent authority. Further, NCLAT at para 133(iv) of order dated 17.02.2020 has again referred to Resolution Plan as approved by NCLT and what was approved by NCLT w.r.t. statutory dues has be interpreted in light of is at Para 128(g) of the NCLT order dated 05.09.2019. Para 133(iv) of NCLAT order states that: "(iv) All penalties, interest, delayed payment charges, any other liabilities for any non-compliance with statutory obligations including taxes, including delays in filing returns or payment of tax dues, against the Company shall stand settled in accordance with the provisions of this plan as approved by NCLT" From the above, it is observed that NCLAT order refers to the Resolution Plan as approved by NCLT. Here, it is also pertinent to note that Resolution Plan was initially approved by Committee of Creditors and then taken up by NCLT in its order dated 05.09.2019. 32 It is also significant to pinpoint that the NCLT had in fact disagreed with the approved Resolution Plan of CoC and has stated that the competent authorities [i.e. Income Tax Department] in this case, would look into the matter of payment of statutory taxes/dues being competent authority. NCLAT at para 133(iv) has again referred to Resolution Plan as approved by NCLT. Further, a bare reading of the relevant Section-31 of the IBC clearly reveals that the approved resolution plan is binding on the Corporate Debtor itself. It is also pertinent to mention here that the assessee vide letter dated 22.01.2020 stated that M/s JSW Steel has filed an application before NCLAT and sought the deletion of para 128(g) of the NCLT order. The Hon'ble NCLAT in its order dated 17.02.2020 did not interfere with the orders of NCLT in respect of statutory demands outstanding against the assessee. This clearly reveals that para 128(g) of the NCLT order operates against the assessee as relief has been denied to the assessee in respect of matters referred to in the said para 128(g) of the NCLT order. With reference to the Hon'ble Apex Court's judgments dated 15.11.2019 in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Satish Kumar Gupta and Ors relied upon by the assessee, it is submitted the judgments talk about "undecided claims' made after acceptance of resolution plan. However, the claim of outstanding demand of Rs,277.14 crores alongwith interest u/s 220(2) of the Act, was lodged by the Department before the Interim Resolution Professional on 23.08.2017. Thus, the claim of the Department in this case was submitted in response to the public announcement inviting claims proceedings under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. In this background, it cannot be said that the claim of Department was thrown on the successful applicant after the approval of the resolution plan by NLCT vide order dated 05.09.2019. Further, it is submitted that as per the NCLT order, the resolution plan submitted by JSW Steel was accepted subject to certain riders as detailed in order of NCLT. After the NCLT order was passed, the assessee was requested by the AO to deposit the outstanding demand of the Income-tax Department. However, the assessee has submitted a letter dated 01.06.2022 in this office alongwith the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in MA 259 of 2022, filed in JSW Ispat Special products Ltd. us State of Orisha and Anr and Judgment in the case of Ghanshaym Mishra. The assessee in its letter requested that as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this office immediately drop and /or withdraw any demands, notices proceedings, orders or the like issued against the assessee for a period prior to commencement of CIRP and requested that an amount of Rs.75,30,59,704/- which have been recovered/adjusted against the outstanding demand in the case of the assessee shall be refunded at the earliest. However, as per the discussion made above, it appears that no relief has been granted by the NCLT [Para-128g of the order dated 05.09.2019] and NCLAT [Para-133(iv) of order dated 17.02.2020] with respect to the liabilities of the assessee towards the Income-tax Department. It is further relevant to assert that in the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 06.09.2022 in the case State Tax Officer Vs Rainbow Papers Ltd, the Hon'ble Apex Court (copy enclosed) has equated the Govt. Tax dues with those of other secured creditors. It has held that the Committee of Creditors which might include financial institutions and other financial creditors cannot secure 33 their own dues at the cost of statutory dues owed to any Govt, or Govt. Authorities or for that matter any other dues. In view of detailed discussion above, it is submitted that it would be appropriate if the Hon'ble ITAT decides issue on merits in its own wisdom. iii. Regarding sustainability of Departmental appeal for AY 2009-10 In this regard, it is submitted that the Departmental appeal for the AY 2009-10 is already sub-judice before the Hon'ble ITAT. In view of detailed discussion in the preceding paragraph above, it is submitted that it would be appropriate if the Hon'ble ITAT decides issue on merits in its own wisdom. The above report is being submitted for your kind consideration and necessary action. It is pertinent to mention here that necessary approval for submission of above report has been granted by the Pr.CIT(Central), Gurguram vide his office letter No.6208 dated 07.02.2023, a copy of which is copy enclosed herewith for your ready reference. 15. It was submitted by the ld CIT/DR that as per the report received from the Assessing Officer, i.e. DCIT, Central Circle-1, Chandigarh vide letter No. DCIT/CC- I/Chd/2022-23/1178 dated 08.02.2023, in assessee's appeal in ITA No. 467/Chd/2019,468/Chd/2019, 470/Chd/2019 & 471/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2013-14 & 2014-15 respectively, the A.O. submits that these appeals were filed by the assessee and if the assessee wants to withdraw these appeals now, then it is prerogative of the assessee to withdraw such appeal. Therefore, the same may be considered for deciding the aforesaid appeals. It must be submitted here that the acceptance of plea of assessee to withdraw these appeals should in no way be construed acceptance of Resolution Plan or acceptance of reasons/submissions cited by the assessee for withdrawal of these appeals. Therefore, such acceptance by the department should in no way debar the department to seek further legal/constitutional remedies at higher forum for all the appeals including these for the same assessee and connected appeals for other assessees. 16. Regarding the Department's appeal in ITA No. 36/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2009- 10 and the Assessee's appeal in ITA No. 469/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13, it was 34 submitted that the report of the A.O. may be perused. If the issue is to be decided on legal ground, then the submission in this report may be taken on record and considered for deciding the appeal. However, if the appeal is to be decided on merit, then the Revenue wishes to file the additional evidence and make submissions. 17. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In view of the submissions made by the assessee company that following the order passed by the NCLT, it doesn’t wish to press various grounds of appeal raised in its appeal filed for A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2014-15 and these appeals may be treated as withdrawn and taking into consideration, the submissions made by the Revenue that since these appeals were filed by the assessee, the latter has the prerogative to withdraw these appeals and at the same time, the acceptance of such submissions to withdraw these appeals shouldn’t be construed as acceptance of resolution plan by the Revenue, the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y 2010-11, AY 2011-12, A.Y 2012-13, A.Y 2013-14 and A.Y 2014-15 are dismissed as withdrawn by the assessee. We accordingly restore the matter to the file of the Assessing officer for taking necessary action in accordance with law (taking into consideration para 18 below) after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee company. The Revenue is at liberty to avail legal remedies, as so advised which it is otherwise entitled under the law. 18. Regarding the submission of the assessee company seeking directions to the AO to nullify the demand pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 given that it pertains to period prior to the effective date as provided in the resolution plan, we find that there are claims by the assessee company about the extinguishment of such liability in view of the provisions of the IBC, the resolution plan (Section 2.2(g), Section 1.6 and in particular clause (vi) of para 1.6 Part B), intimation of insolvency proceedings by the Resolution Professional vide his letter dated 20.03.2019 addressed to ld PCIT(Central), Gurgaon, the resolution plan as approved by NCLT (para 108 pages 115-117 ) dated 5.09.2019 and subsequent order of the NCLAT dated 17.02.2020; and the counter-claims by the Revenue in terms of raising of its claim amounting to Rs 277,13,55,962/- vide its letter dated 23.08.2017 during the CIRP proceedings (which has not been disputed by the assessee as noted in its written submission para 1(iii) supra), lack of communication on part of the Resolution Professional and consequent lack of status of the Revenue’s claim as provided in the 35 resolution plan and the interpretation of orders passed by NCLT (para 128(g))and NCLAT order (para 133(iv)) vis-à-vis tax dues, we believe that it is relevant to determine the status of the claim so made by the Revenue well made during the course of the CIRP proceedings and how the same has been dealt with by the Resolution Professional while finalizing the resolution plan and basis and quantum thereof, as the same is not clearly emerging from the resolution plan, especially where the income tax litigation pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 finds mention in Annexure 4 (Details of Tax litigation) to clause (vi) of para 1.6 Part B of the resolution plan. It is therefore a case where the tax litigation pertaining to A.Y 2012-13 finds mention in the resolution plan but how the same has been dealt with and provided for in the resolution plan is not clearly emerging. It is only where the claim of the Revenue doesn’t form part of the resolution plan and such resolution plan is approved by the NCLT and has attained finality in absence of any further appeal, the liability of the assessee company towards the Revenue can be said to have been extinguished. In case there is any modification done by the NCLT, being the adjudicating authority, the resolution plan as so approved and which has attained finality in absence of any further appeal would be binding on the assessee as well as the Revenue. In the instant case, there are certain modification done in the resolution plan by NCLT and thereafter NCLT order has been challenged before the NCLAT therefore the findings of the NCLT and that of the NCLAT would also be relevant and needs to be taken into consideration. We therefore deem it appropriate to restore the matter to this limited extent to the file of the Assessing officer to examine all these aspects and take necessary action in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee company. 19. Regarding appeal filed by the Revenue for A.Y 2009-10, in view of the provisions of the IBC, order of the NCLT dated 5.09.2019 and subsequent order of the NCLAT dated 17.02.2020, it is an admitted position that the appeal relates to the period prior to the effective date and there are no outstanding tax dues and claim made by the Revenue during the CIRP proceedings, in terms of resolution plan as approved by NCLT, the present appellate proceedings stand terminated and withdrawn. Therefore, in view of the order of the NCLT dated 5.09.2019, we deem it appropriate to restore the matter to the file of the Assessing officer for taking necessary action in accordance with law after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee company. 36 20. We now refer to connected appeals in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd and other cases filed by the Revenue and cross-objection filed by the respective assessees against the orders of the ld CIT(A) wherein the respective grounds of appeal are as follows: ITA No. 405/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 21. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.39,40,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.78,80,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” C.O. No. 8/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 405/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2010-11 22. This is a cross objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.39,40,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.78,80,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third- party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y2010-2011 year was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014.” ITA No. 406/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 23. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,24,10,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,54,20,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” 37 C.O. No. 9/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 406/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2011-12 24. This is a cross-objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,24,10,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,54,20,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y2011-2012 year was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014.” ITA No. 407/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 25. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 38 “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,59,16,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,79,52,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing.” C.O. No. 10/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 407/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2012-13 26. This is a Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,59,16,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.5,79,52,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y2012-2013 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014.” 39 ITA No. 408/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 27. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.62,91,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,41,94,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 11/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 408/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2013-14 28. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.62,91,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,41,94,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by 40 relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 409/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of M/s Vision Steel Ltd. 29. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,88,67,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,77,34,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 12/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 409/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2014-15 30. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,88,67,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.3,77,34,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed 41 u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 410/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 in case of M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 31. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.41,80,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.83,60,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 13/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 410/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2010-11 32. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.41,80,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.83,60,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 42 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2010-2011 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 411/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 in case of M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 33. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,26,60,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,61,20,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 14/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 411/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2011-12 34. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,26,60,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 43 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,61,20,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2011-2012 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 412/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 35. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,90,56,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,02,62,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 15/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 412/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2012-13 36. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 44 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,90,56,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.6,02,62,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2012-2013 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 413/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 37. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.52,72,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,21,56,000 made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 45 C.O. No. 16/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 413/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2013-14 38. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.52,72,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,21,56,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 414/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. 39. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,91,23,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,82,46,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. 46 (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 17/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 414/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2014-15 40. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,91,23,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.3,82,46,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 415/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 in case of M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 41. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.41,75,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. 47 (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.83,50,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 19/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 415/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2010-11 42. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.41,75,00,000/-/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.83,50,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2010-2011 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. 48 ITA No. 416/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 in case of M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 43. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: “(i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,35,85,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,82,70,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 18/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 416/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2011-12 44. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,35,85,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,82,70,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by 49 relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2011-2012 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 417/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 45. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,86,15,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,90,90,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 20/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 417/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2012-13 46. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.286,15,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.5,90,90,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel 50 Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2012-2013 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 418/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 47. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.47,65,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,11,42,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 21/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 418/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2013-14 48. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.47,65,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel 51 Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,11,42,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 419/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. 49. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,93,99,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,87,98,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 22/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 419/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2014-15 50. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 52 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,93,99,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.3,87,98,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 420/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2010-11 in case of M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 51. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.41,25,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.82,50,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 23/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 420/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2010-11 52. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 53 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.41,25,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.82,50,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2010-2011 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 421/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2011-12 in case of M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 53. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,24,77,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,60,54,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. 54 C.O. No. 24/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 421/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2011-12 54. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.124,77,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,60,54,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2011-2012 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. ITA No. 422/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2012-13 in case of M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 55. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: 55 (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.2,97,55,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.6,33,60,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 25/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 422/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2012-13 56. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.2,97,55,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.6,33,60,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) while correctly deleting the protective additions made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 68 & 69C has erred in not giving a specific finding to the effect that the assessment framed u/s 153A of the Act making the impugned additions u. s 68 & 69C in respect of an unabated A.Y 2012-2013 was devoid of jurisdiction and bad in law since no incriminating material pertaining to the said year was found pursuant to the search operation conducted on the Assessee on 21/02/2014. 56 ITA No. 423/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2013-14 in case of M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 57. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.48,27,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,12,66,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 26/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 423/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2013-14 58. This Cross Objection filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.48,27,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,12,66,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by 57 relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. ITA No. 424/Chd/2019 for A.Y. 2014-15 in case of M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. 59. This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- 3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Revenue has raised the following grounds: (i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.1,90,89,00,000/- made u/s 68 of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,81,78,000/- made u/s 69C of the IT Act, 1961 by the Assessing Officer. (iii) The appellant craves to add, amend, alter or modify any grounds of appeal at the time of hearing. C.O. No. 27/Chd/2021 (in ITA No. 424/Chd/2019) for A.Y. 2014-15 60. This Cross Objection is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon dt. 29/01/2019, wherein the Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.1,90,89,00,000/- made in hands of the Assessee u/s 68 on the ground that the corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him, has erred in not holding that even otherwise, the impugned credits vis-a-vis the protective additions made u/s 68 in the hands of the Assessee were perfectly genuine and that the Assessee had successfully discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 i.e., the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the impugned credits. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition of Rs.3,81,78,000/- made in the hands of the Assessee u/s 69C on the ground that corresponding substantive addition made in the hands of Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. had been confirmed by him. has erred in not giving a categorically finding to the effect that addition u/s 69C on account of imaginary /fictitious commission expenses solely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures in the absence of any supporting evidence was unsustainable and bad-in-law. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) while deleting the protective additions made u/s 68 & 69C of the Act. has erred in not specifically holding that the assessment framed 58 u/s 153A in the case of the Assessee herein was unsustainable and bad-in-law inasmuch as the same was passed in violation of principles of Natural Justice by relying on untested third-party statements and data without affording any opportunity of cross-examination of such persons to the Assessee. 61. All these cases have a common fact pattern wherein protective additions have been made in the hands of four companies, namely M/s Vision Steel Ltd, M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd, M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd, M/s Marsh Steel Ltd wheras substantive additions were made in the hands of M/s Bhusan Power and Steel Ltd. 62. For the sake of present discussion, with the consent of both the parties, the case of the assessee M/s Vision Steel Ltd for A.Y 2010-11 was taken as a lead case. In this case, the assessment was completed u/s 153A r/w 143(3) vide order dated 31/03/2016 wherein the AO made an addition of Rs 39,40,00,000/- on protective basis on account of amount received as share capital/application money from various companies by invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act. Further, an addition of Rs 78,80,000/- was made under section 69C again on protective basis on account of commission expenses for arranging the entries towards share capital/share application money. The concluding findings of the AO are contained in para H pages 115-119 of the assessment order and the contents thereof read as under: “H. Conclusion ;- During the assessment proceedings of the Bhushan Power & Steel (BPSL) Group cases, it was seen that the whole Share Capital/Application money received in 27 group companies of BPSL (Including the assessee) was ultimately transferred to M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd (M/s BPSL) through four front companies viz. M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd., M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd., M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. and M/s Vision Steel Trading Ltd. M/s BPSL was the final beneficiary of all the entries received by the whole group companies from various entry providers operating throughout the country. This unaccounted money of M/s BPSL received in 27 group companies was re-routed time and again amongst these companies and a web of multiple transactions was created. After multiple layering the whole money was transferred to the above mentioned four front companies and thereafter to the ultimate beneficiary M/s Bhshan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) 2. The evidence gathered and confronted with the assessee group establish the fact that the BPSL group companies managed & controlled by Sh. Sanjay Singal willfully, with an clear intention of tax evasion created a camouflage of multiple transactions, the ultimate beneficiary of which was M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Also evidence gathered 59 suggest that the unaccounted income was generated by M/s BPSL. Therefore, the whole amount of share capital/share application money received in various group companies of BPSL group is being taxed in the hands of ultimate beneficiary i.e. M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd (BPSL) by applying the concept of "Opening of Corporate Veil or Piercing of Veil". 3. From the factual position of the share premium received from A.Y. 2008-09 to 2014- 15 by the group companies and routed to BPSL, it is clear that the total money received in the 27 group companies of M/s BPSL (Including the assessee) was around Rs. 3318 Crores and Rs. 3315 Crores was ultimately paid out to M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd, which is almost same. This fact also corroborate that the final beneficiary of this whole web of transactions was M/s BPSL, for which the whole structure of around 27 companies was created. 4. The assessee group used its companies to create a smoke screen to receive back its unaccounted income in the garb of Share Capital / Share Application money. The multiple layering of transactions was done by the assessee to create a camouflage to hide the actual purpose / nature of these transactions. Therefore, it is a fit case to lift the corporate veil and bring to tax the actual beneficiary of all these transactions, which in this case is the assessee M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. Therefore, following the stand of the department in the previous search assessments, the substantive additions are being made in the hands of M/s BPSL and protective additions are being made in the four front companies viz. M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd., M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd., M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. and M/s Vision Steel Trading Ltd. in the respective assessment years (To avoid multiple protective additions in various group companies). 5. In the assessee's case there are various sworn statements of entry operators duly supported by corroborative evidences which establish the fact that the assessee received huge amounts in the garb of share capital/application money from the companies managed and controlled by various entry operators. The assessee failed to submit any satisfactory explanation regarding theses transactions coupled with the plethora of incriminating evidences and sworn admittances of various persons. Therefore considering the detailed discussion made in the previous paras in different chapters of the assessment order it has been established that the assessee indulged in "SHAM" transactions to receive back his/her unaccounted money in the garb of share capital/application money. Therefore, the total receipts credited in various bank accounts/books of accounts of the assessee against these bogus/sham transactions have to be treated as unexplained income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act 1961, along with the commission expense @ 2% of the total money received, for arranging these entries u/s 69C of the Act. 6. The details of share capital application money for various years are as follows: Rs. In Crores Company / A.Y. 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 G. Total Diyajyoti 37.5 41 74.15 130.27 316.8 56.33 190.89 846.94 Jasmine 37.5 39 76.25 141.35 295.45 55.71 193.99 839.25 Marsh 37.5 35 75.85 130.6 301.31 60.78 191.23 832.27 Vision 37.5 10 72.65 127.1 289.76 70.97 188.67 796.65 Total 150 125 298.9 529.32 1203.32 243.79 764.78 3318.11 6.1 The above table shows the complete details of bogus share capital/application money received by the assessee from various companies managed and controlled by various entry operators, therefore considering all the facts in totality the protective additions for Assessment Year 2010-11 are being made as follows:- Sr. No. Particulars of additions Amount (Rs.) 1. Total share capital/application money received, addition u/s 68 72,65,00,000/- 60 2. Less:- Already added substantively u/s 68 following the directions of Hon'ble ITSC vide order dated 30.06.2013 33,25,00,000/- 3. Remaining amount being added protectively u/s 68 as per discussion in the assessment order 39,40,00,000/- 4. Add:- Unexplained expense @ 2% of total share capital/application entry taken, addition u/s 69C (2% of amount in 3 rd row) 78,80,000/- 5. Total protective addition made to the returned income/last assessed income 40,18,80,000/- 7.1. All the facts discussed above point towards the fact that the assessee has intended to conceal the particulars of his income and has thus furnished inaccurate particulars. This clearly establishes that the assessee has made a willful attempt to evade taxes by furnishing inaccurate particulars of his income and thus concealed the particulars of income. Accordingly, penalty proceedings penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the Act are hereby initiated separately.” 63. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) challenging the findings and the order of the AO. The ld CIT(A) after taking into considerations the findings of the AO and submission made by the assessee company has returned a finding that since he has already confirmed the additions in the hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited on substantive basis vide his separate order dated 27/01/2019, the additions made in the hands of the assessee company on protective basis were deleted and the relevant findings of the ld CIT(A) are contained in para 6, pages 106-107 of the impugned order and the contents thereof read as under: “6. Decision: I have gone through the assessment order and submissions of the appellant and following observations are made:- Ground No. 3 relates to addition of Rs. 259,16,00,000/- on protective basis in respect of amounts received as share capital/application money from various companies on protective basis. Ground No. 4 relates to addition of Rs. 5,79,52,000/- on protective basis on account of commission expenses. On these issues addition on substantive basis were made in the case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd during the years under consideration and addition on protective basis were made in the case of appellant company on the same issue. As the additions made in the case of M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd had since been confirmed by the undersigned in consolidated order for AY 2010-11 to AY 2014-15 in order dated 27.01.2019 in Appeal Nos. 399,397,589,590&596/CIT(A)-3/GGN/20l 6-17, the 61 addition(s) made on protective basis in the case of appellant company for the year under consideration are hereby deleted. As the additions made in this case have been deleted for reasons given above, the remaining grounds are merely academic and therefore not being adjudicated. 7. As a result, the appeal(s) of the appellant are allowed in all the years under consideration i.e. AY 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14 and AY 2014-15.” 64. Against the aforesaid findings and the order of the ld CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before us and the assessee has also moved a cross-objection. 65. At the outset, it is noted that there is delay of 794 days in filing cross- objection by the assessee as pointed out by the Registry. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee has moved an application seeking condonation of delay along with an affidavit which is placed on record. It was submitted that the assessee has received the notice of appeal filed by the Revenue on 24/07/2019 and the cross-objection was filed on 25/10/2021. It was submitted that in view of the covid-19 pandemic and other reasonable cause, the assessee couldn’t file its cross-objections within 30 days of receipt of notice of appeal filed by the Revenue. It was submitted that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo-moto writ petition (Civil) No. 3/2020 dated 23/09/2021, the period between 15/03/2020 to 2/10/2021 need to be excluded for working out the limitation period for filing the present cross- appeal. It was further submitted that the delay in preferring the Cross Objection is due to the fact that M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. (the erstwhile flagship concern of the Assessee Co.) was facing a severe financial crisis since the F.Y. 2014-2015, that resulted in the initiation of insolvency proceedings against it on 26.07.2017. The same had only attained finality in September 2019 vide the Order of the NCLT, New Delhi, Principal Bench dated 05.09.2019 whereby M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. was approved/sanctioned to be taken over by JSW Steel Ltd. Now, during the period between July 2017 to March 2021, the control of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. was with the Resolution Professional and/or the Monitoring Committee of the Banks as decided by the NCLT, Principal Bench, Delhi - the same lead to severe miscommunication and difficulty in procuring/retrieving documents from the Office of the flagship 62 concern, in light of the impending take-over of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Ltd. by JSW Steel Ltd. w.e.f. 26.03.2021. It was further submitted that from March 2020, the Pandemic's outbreak resulted in the closure of the offices around the country, including that of the Assessee Co. and this unfortunately only further inhibited coordination, delivery and/or collation of documents pertaining to the Assessee's pending litigation. Further, it was submitted that it is only in the month of August 2021, where, pursuant to a change in the management of the Assessee Co. that proper steps were taken towards itemizing the pending litigation either entered into and/or initiated by the Assessee Co. This resulted in a change of the Arguing Counsel as well, who upon a perusal of the papers and the Departmental appeals' pending before the ITAT advised the Assessee Co. to file the concerned Cross Objection in the aforesaid Departmental Appeal. It was accordingly submitted that there was sufficient cause beyond the control of the assessee company which has resulted in delayed filing of the cross-objection. Further, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Supreme court decision in case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs Mst. Katiji & others (1987) 167 ITR 471 and Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of Shiv Singh vs NPCC 73(1998) DLT 582. 66. The ld CIT/DR is heard who has objected to the assessee’s aforesaid prayer seeking condonation of delay. It was submitted that there is a substantial delay of 794 in filing the cross-objection by the assessee which the assessee need to explain more exhaustively. It was submitted that even where the Covid period is excluded as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient delay prior to outbreak of the Covid pandemic which the assessee need to explain and which it has failed in the instant case. It was accordingly submitted that the cross-objections filed by the assessee deserve to be dismissed at the threshold on account of delayed filing without reasonable cause. 67. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record including the affidavit filed by the assessee company. There is no 63 dispute that there has been a delay in filing the present cross objection by the assessee company and the period of delay as computed by the Registry comes to 794 days. There is also no dispute that under section 253(5) of the Act, the Tribunal may admit an appeal filed beyond the period of limitation where it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause on the part of the assessee for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed time. The explanation of the assessee therefore becomes relevant to determine whether the same reflects sufficient cause on its part in not presenting the present appeal within the prescribed time. In the instant case, an affidavit of the assessee company submitted through its one of the Directors/authorized representative is placed on record and the contents thereof have been examined. As per the affidavit, M/s Bhusan Power and Steel limited, the flagship concern of the assessee company, was facing severe financial crises and insolvency proceedings were initiated against it before the NCLT and during the period July 2017 to March 2021, the control over the flagship concern was with the Resolution professional and the monitoring committee of the banks which lead to severe challenges in terms of procuring/retrieving documents from the office of the flagship concern and thereafter, pursuant to change in management of the flagship concern and the assessee company in August 2021, the steps were taken to file the present cross-objections. It was further submitted that the offices of the assessee company were also closed on account of Covid pandemic which also inhibited proper co-ordination pending to assessee’s pending litigations. The fact that the flagship concern of the assessee company was undergoing insolvency proceedings under the IBC and the matter was sub-judice before the NCLT and Higher appellate authorities and during this period, the affairs were managed by the Resolution professional is not under dispute. Given the close linkage between the assessee company and its flagship concern, as also apparent from the assessment records, it appears that handling of the insolvency proceedings took precedence over the present tax litigation wherein as a matter of fact, the 64 appeal was decided by the ld CIT(A) in favour of the assessee company and given that the ld CIT(A) has not recorded specific findings on merits of the case, the assessee has come by way of filing the cross-objection. Further, there is no dispute that for working out the limitation, the period from 15/03/2020 to 2/10/2021 need to be excluded as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred. Therefore, in exercise of powers under section 253(5) of the Act, we find that there was reasonable cause for the delayed filing of cross-objection and we hereby condone the delay in filing the present cross- appeal and the same is hereby admitted for adjudication. 68. Similarly, in respect of other cross-appeals filed by the respective assessees, similar fact pattern exist and similar contentions have been advanced by both the parties and in view of the aforesaid discussions, the delay in filing the cross-objection in all other cases are hereby condoned and the same are admitted also for adjudication. 69. Now, coming to the grounds of appeal taken by the Revenue in its appeal, it is noted that the Revenue has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs 39,40,00,000/- made under section 68 by the AO and in deleting another addition of Rs 78,80,000/- was made under section 69C of the Act. 70. The assessee in its cross-objection has raised the ground that the ld CIT(A) while deleting the protective addition has not specifically held that the assessee company has discharged the onus of establishing the requisite ingredients of section 68 in terms of identity, creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transaction. The assessee has also raised the ground that the ld CIT(A) has erred in not giving a categorical finding that addition u/s 69C has been made on account of imaginery/fictitious commission expenses on the 65 basis of surmises and conjectures and in absence of any supporting evidence. The assessee has also raised the ground that the ld CIT(A) has erred in not giving a categorical finding that the assessment order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice by relying on third party data and statements without affording any opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee and in absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search on the assessee’s premises which was conducted on 21/02/2014. 71. During the course of hearing, no specific contentions were however advanced on the aforesaid grounds of appeal by either of the parties. At the same time, both the parties fairly submitted that where the appeals of the assessee M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited for A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2014-15 are dismissed by the Bench, these appeals filed by the Revenue and cross- objections filed by the respective assessees for A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2014-15 will become infructious and in that background, there may not be a necessity to refer to and adjudicate the specific grounds of appeal in the respective appeals/cross-objection. 72. Elaborating further, it was submitted that for the respective assessment years, the additions on substantive basis were made in the hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited and on protective basis in the hands of the respective assessees in respect of transactions relating to share capital/share application money under section 68 and in respect of commission expenses under section 69C of the Act. It was submitted that the additions on substantive basis in the hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited has been confirmed by the ld CIT(A) and against which M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited has moved the aforesaid appeals before the Tribunal. It was further submitted that given that substantive additions were confirmed by the ld CIT(A) in hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, the additions on protective basis in the hands of the respective assessees were deleted by the ld CIT(A) and against which the 66 Revenue has moved the present appeals before the Tribunal and the respective assessees have filed their cross-objections. It was submitted that where the appeals filed by M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited are dismissed by the Bench, the order of the ld CIT(A) wherein he has confirmed the substantive additions in the hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited will attain finality and consequently, there won’t be any basis for making the additions on protective basis in hands of the respective assessees. In any case, the ld CIT(A) against which the Revenue has filed the present appeals has also returned the same finding while allowing the appeals filed by the assessee stating that since substantive additions have been confirmed in hands of M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited, he is deleting the addition on protective basis in hands of the respective assessees. 73. In view of the aforesaid submissions made by both the parties, given that we have dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee, M/s Bhushan Power and Steel Limited against the order of the ld CIT(A) for A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2014-15 as withdrawn by the assessee, the present set of appeals filed by the Revenue and cross-objections filed by the respective assessees for A.Y 2010-11 to A.Y 2014-15 have become infructious and are thus dismissed as such at the threshold leaving the respective grounds of appeal open and not adjudicated upon. 74. In the result, the respective appeals/cross-objections are disposed off as under: Sl.No. ITA No. / C.O.No. A.Y Filed by Assessee / Revenue Name of the Assessee Result 1. ITA No. 36/Chd/2019 2009-10 Revenue M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Dismissed 2. ITA No. 467 to 471/Chd/2019 2010-11 To 2014-15 Assessee M/s Bhushan Power & Steel Ltd. Dismissed as withdrawn Read with directions contained in para 67 17&18 supra 3. ITA No. 405 to 409/Chd/2019 2010-11 To 2014-15 Revenue M/s Vision Steel Ltd. Dismissed 4. C.O. No. 8 to 12/Chd/2021 (In ITA No. 405 to 409/Chd/2019) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Assessee M/s Vision Steel Ltd. Dismissed 5. ITA. No. 410 to 414/Chd/2019 2010-11 To 2014-15 Revenue M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. Dismissed 6. C.O. No. 13 to 17/Chd/2021 (In ITA No. 410 to 414/Chd/2019) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Assessee M/s Marsh Steel Ltd. Dismissed 7. ITA No. 415 to 419/Chd/2019 2010-11 To 2014-15 Revenue M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. Dismissed 8. C.O. No. 18 to 22/Chd/2021 (In ITA No. 415 to 419/Chd/2019) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Assessee M/s Jasmine Steel Trading Ltd. Dismissed 9. ITA No. 420 to 424/Chd/2019 2010-11 To 2014-15 Revenue M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. Dismissed 10. C.O. No. 23 to 27/Chd/2021 (In ITA No. 420 to 424/Chd/2019) 2010-11 To 2014-15 Assessee M/s Diyajyoti Steel Ltd. Dismissed Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/06/2023. Sd/- Sd/- आकाश द प जैन #व$म &संह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद+य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 19/06/2023 आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. आयकर आय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar