Pr. CIT (Central)-4 v. DBM Geotechnics & Construction Pvt. Ltd.

Case snapshot

Sections / provisions: 260A; IBC 31

Questions before the Court / Tribunal

• Tax demand after approved resolution plan: The reported judgment considers the effect of an approved insolvency resolution plan on statutory tax dues not preserved in that plan. The tax appeal was reported as academic where no enforceable demand could survive outside the approved plan.

Material facts and background

tax Act, 1961, assails the order dated 12 May 2023 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench ("Tribunal"), whereby the Revenue's appeal challenging the order dated 31 August 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has been dismissed.The assessment year in question is Assessment Year 2012–13. The Revenue has proposed the following substantial questions of law for consideration in the present appeal: QUESTION OF LAW i. On the facts and in the circumstdnces of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in deleting the subcontract charges ofRs.15,37,38,561/- paid to M/s. Naftogasz (India) Pvt. Ltd. Without appreciating the fact that the onus cast upon the assessee was not discharged either during the assessment proceedings or remand proceedings."

ii. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon'ble ITAT erred in concluding that no adverse material has been placed by the assessing officer to hold that the sub contract charges are bogus, without appreciating the fact that the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings has merely submitted factual report."

the Assessing Officer completed the assessment for the assessment year in question under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, making certain additions to the income returned by the assessee. 3.

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By an order dated 31 August 2018, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer, on behalf of the Revenue, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 31 October 2018. 4.

Appellant/Revenue has made submissions on this Appeal. However, as rightly pointed out on behalf of the assessee, the proceedings would stand covered by the decision of the Supreme Court in Samarth Lifters Private Ltd. Vs. DBN Geotechnics & Construction Private Limited &Anr. which has referred to the prior decision of the Supreme Court in Vaibhav Goel & Anr Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax & Anr.1 and considering the provisions of Section 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and as also the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt.Ltd. Through the 1 2025 Live Law(SC)330 Page 3 of 7 Mane

Appellant / assessee submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Revenue / respondent submissions

The judgment copy does not separately set out this component in a distinct section; refer to the full order and the reasoning section below.

Court / Tribunal analysis and reasoning

102.2. The 2019 Amendment to Section 31 of the 1&B Code is clarificatory and declaratory in nature and therefore will be effective from the date on which the I&B Code has come into effect. 102.3. Consequently, 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 dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 could be continued." (emphasis added) 8. In view of the declaration of law made by this Court, all the dues including the statutory dues owed to the Central Government, if not a part of the Resolution Plan, shall stand extinguished and no proceedings could be continued in respect of such dues for the period prior to the date on which the adjudicating authority grants its approval under Section 31 of the IB Code. In this case, the income tax dues of the CD for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14 were not part of the approved Resolution Plan. Therefore, in view of sub-section (1) of Section 31, as interpreted by this Court in the above decision, the...

Operative decision and relief

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). By an order dated 31 August 2018, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) partly allowed the appeal and granted substantial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing Officer, on behalf of the Revenue, preferred an appeal before the Tribunal on 31 October 2018. 4.

Authorities and precedents appearing in the judgment

• Bank v. Satish Kumar Gupta

This list is machine-assisted from the judgment text and is not a substitute for checking the full citation chain in the PDF.

Ratio and legal principle

The decision turns on Tax demand after approved resolution plan. The operative result is classified as Partly Allowed. Read the rule only with the statutory version, factual findings and precedent chain recorded in the full judgment.

Why this judgment matters

The case is relevant to taxpayers, advisers and litigators dealing with Tax demand after approved resolution plan. Its practical value lies in the interaction between the statutory text, the evidentiary record and the procedural route followed in this case.

Practitioner action points

• Use the judgment as a fact-specific precedent: match the statutory version, assessment period, procedural stage and evidentiary record before relying on the result.
• Check whether a later High Court/Supreme Court order has affirmed, reversed, distinguished or rendered the decision academic.
• For litigation, attach the full judgment/order to the working paper and cite the paragraph/page supporting the proposition rather than relying on a headnote alone.

Full judgment and source trail

Read / download the clean local judgment copy

Related Finin2min guidance