AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
O R D E R
Per: Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain: (Oral)
02.12.2024: This appeal is directed against the order dated 13.09.2023 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi, Special Bench by which an application filed by the Liquidator bearing I.A No. 4457 of 2021 under Section 60(5)(c) of the Code for a direction to the Respondent herein to return the amount of Rs. 20,50,000/- in the account of the Corporate Debtor viz. Rathi Super Steel Limited (in Liquidation) on the ground that the said amount belongs to the CD and could not have been adjusted by the Respondent against the outstanding demand raised against the CD for the AY 2011 – 12 has been dismissed.
The Tribunal has dismissed the application, inter alia, on the ground that the amount was seized in the year 2012 by the Department. The Corporate Debtor was selected for scrutiny u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act for A.Y. 2011-12 and the assessment was completed on 31.12.2018 resulting into a demand of Rs. 37506040 /-. The Assessee i.e. Corporate Debtor filed an appeal before CIT(A) against the outstanding demand but as per the instructions of the Board, the Assessee was liable to pay 20% of the outstanding amount i.e. 7501208/-. The said amount stated to have been adjusted by the Respondent on 31.03.2019. In this regard, he has produced an online tax accounting system of the department of income tax which indicated that the amount in question pertaining to the year 2011-12 has been adjusted vide challan serial no. 86 on 31.03.2019 whereas CIRP in this case was initiated on 12.06.2019. The said OLTAS payment and challan status for tax payer are reproduced as under:-
The only argument raised by the Appellant is that the amount could not have been adjusted by the Department even if it has been seized for the year 2011-12 after the initiation of the CIRP because Respondent has to file a claim in terms of the Code either to the IRP or to the Liquidator as the case may be.
However, since the amount in question having been seized in the year 2011-12 and has already been adjusted on 31.03.2019 as per the evidence produced, indicated herein above, much prior to the initiation of CIRP much less the liquidation which took place much later thereof, therefore, the argument raised by the Appellant has no legs to stand.
Thus, in such circumstances, we do not find any error in the impugned order and hence, the present appeal is found without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. Applications, if any, are hereby closed. No costs.