Bombay High Court
V Hotels Limited vs The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax ... on 6 August, 2025
Author: B. P. Colabawalla
Bench: B. P. Colabawalla
2025:BHC-OS:12931-DB
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 22834 OF 2025
Digitally
signed by V Hotels Limited .. Petitioner
UDAY
UDAY SHIVAJI
SHIVAJI JAGTAP
JAGTAP Date:
2025.08.08
Versus
11:31:26
+0530
The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax,
Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai & Ors. .. Respondents
Mr. Prakash Shah, Senior Counsel a/w Mr. Jas Sanghavi i/b
PDS Legal, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Vipul Bajpayee, Advocate for the Respondent No.
CORAM: B. P. COLABAWALLA &
FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, JJ.
DATE: AUGUST 6, 2025.
P. C.
1. Rule. Respondents waive service. With the consent of parties,
Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India, the Petitioner is challenging the re-assessment proceedings initiated by
the Respondent No. 1 vide notice dated 19 th March 2025 issued under Section
148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the A.Y. 2021-22.
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
3. It is contended by the Petitioner that re-assessment proceedings
for AY 2021-22 initiated against the Petitioner are liable to be quashed and
set aside, in view the Resolution Plan approved by the National Company
Law Board (NCLT) vide order dated 26th April 2024.
4. It is further contended by the Petitioner that, prior to initiation
of the impugned reassessment proceedings, the NCLT, Mumbai Bench, vide
its order dated 31st May 2019, admitted an application filed by Asset
Reconstruction Company (India) Limited under Section 7 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (for short "IBC") and declared a moratorium
under Section 14 of the IBC and appointed the Resolution Professional.
5. In an appeal filed against the order dated 31 st May 2019, the
National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (the NCLAT), vide its order dated
11th December 2019 set aside the said order dated 31 st May 2019.
6. Vide its order and judgment dated 1st August 2022, the Hon'ble
Apex Court was pleased to set aside the order dated 11 th December 2019 of
NCLAT and restore the order dated 31st May 2019 passed by the NCLT.
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
7. In view of the order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the CIRP
proceedings continued and the NCLT, vide its order dated 26 th April 2024,
approved the Resolution Plan of Macrotech Developers Limited in
accordance with the provisions of Section 31 of the IBC.
8. Accordingly, it is contended by the Petitioner that the entire
proceedings are without jurisdiction and contrary to law declared by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. & Ors. [(2021) 9
SCC 657] and Vaibhav Goel & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of
Income Tax & Anr. [(2025) 255 Company Cases 266 (SC)].
9. It is further contended by the Petitioner that the impugned
reassessment proceedings are contrary to law declared by this Court in Alok
Industries Ltd. Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024]
161 taxmann.com 285 (Bombay), Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com
492 (Bombay) and Order dated 21st July 2025 passed by this Court
in Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2025 (Ornate Spaces Private Limited
Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors).
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
11. The short issue to be decided is that whether the Income Tax
Authorities can proceed against the Petitioner for alleged escapement of tax
for the period prior to the approval of the Resolution Plan by NCLT, and
which does not form part of the Resolution Plan approved by the NCLT.
12. We find that the tax allegedly escaping assessment pertains to
AY 2021-22, which is prior to the approval of Resolution Plan and does not
form part of the Resolution Plan.
13. In the present case, on a combined reading of paragraph Nos. 30
and 31 of the order dated 26th April 2025 of the NCLT [approving the
Resolution Plan], would indicate that all past claims against the Petitioner
stood extinguished. The NCLT, while approving the Resolution Plan, made a
reference to the ratio of the order and judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ghanshyam Mishra (supra) in the context of statutory dues.
14. The issue involved in the present petition, therefore, is no longer
res integra.
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
15. In a series of decisions, including in Alok Industries Ltd. Vs.
Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 161 taxmann.com
285 (Bombay), Uttam Galva Metallics Ltd. vs. Assistant
Commissioner of Income-tax [2024] 166 taxmann.com 492
(Bombay) and Order dated 21st July 2025 passed by this Court in
Writ Petition No. 2698 of 2025 (Ornate Spaces Private Limited
Vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors.), following the ratio of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ghanshyam
Mishra (supra), this Court quashed the reassessment proceedings for prior
assessment years in view of the approval of the Resolution Plan by the NCLT.
16. In a recent decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Vaibhav Goel & Anr. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax &
Anr. [(2025) 255 Company Cases 266 (SC)] reiterated that the
demand made subsequent to approval of a Resolution Plan by an
Adjudicating Authority, is invalid and once a Resolution Plan is approved by
the NCLT, no belated claim can be included therein that was not made
earlier.
17. In fact, we find that the Respondents had submitted their claims
in respect of income tax dues of the Petitioner pertaining to the AY 2018-19
and AY 2019-20, as is evident from the list of Operational Creditors
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
(Government dues) submitted by the Resolution Professional to the NCLT.
However, no claim was filed for the Assessment Year under consideration.
Therefore, permitting the Respondents to continue with the reassessment
proceedings will result in derailing the Resolution Plan and the Resolution
Applicant will not be in a position to revive the Petitioner with a clean slate as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra
(supra).
18. In view of the foregoing discussions, we hold that the
Respondents cannot be permitted to proceed with the reassessment
proceedings for AY 2021-22 in furtherance of the impugned notice dated 19 th
March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act.
19. Accordingly, the above writ petition is allowed. The impugned
notice dated 19th March 2025 issued under Section 148 of the Act and any
consequential orders/notices issued to the Petitioner are quashed and set
aside.
20. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to
costs.
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
21-22834-2025-WP-L=.doc
21. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/
Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax
or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
[FIRDOSH P. POONIWALLA, J.] [B. P. COLABAWALLA, J.]
AUGUST 6, 2025
Uday S. Jagtap
