VRDV Traders Private Limited v. 1. Union of lndia

the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court nray be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 31.07.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 148-A(d) of the lncome Tax Act (Act), the notice dated 31 .O7.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Section 148 of the Act and all consequential proceed ings thereto. lA NO: 1 OF 2024 Between:

1. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncorne T,ax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500004

2. Deputy Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, Room no. 914, 9th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad - 500084 3. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, Nationzrl Faceless Assessment Centre, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharla Nehru Stadium, Delhi - 1'10003 ,,...r=r,r,O*r*r, AND 1. Vaksh Steels Private Limited, A Company registered rnder the Companies Act, 1956, Having its registered office at Flat No.204, .2no floor, lVlaha Laxmi Nagar, Kummazri Wadi, [Vtangalhat, Hyderabad TG 50()006 and Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Director Mr' Vinod t'nnt' RHSPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ._,..La_a!_grqEryT] WRIT PETITIONER

2. Union of lndia, represented by its Secretary, Departmenl. of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi -1 10001 . ...RESPONDENT/ RESPONDENT No.1 Petition un,Jer Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir,lumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court m,ay be pleased to this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to vacate the interim order granted on 11-01-2023 in W.P.No.1194 of 2023. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ANEESH Counsel forthe Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. solrptToR GENERAL OF tNDtA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR ITD W.P.NO: 10o2O OF 2023 Between: VRDV Traders Private Limited, (formerly known as Vaksh Steels Private Limited) having its registered office at Plot no.81/A/F/3, Road No.12, MLA Colony, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Telangana, lndia 500034 and Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Director Mr. Vinod Singh. (C.T. is amended as per Court order dt. 07lO4l2O25, Vide lA.No,1 of 2025, in wP No' 1oo2o of 2023\ ...pETraoNER AND

1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi Rep. by its Secretary

2. Principal Chief Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome Tax Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500004.

3. Assistant Commissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 8(1), Hyderabad, Room No.9 14, 9th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hyderabad-500084

4. The Assessment Unit, lncome Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Room No. 401, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi '1 10003 ...RESPONDENTS I Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia fiaying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed ther.ewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus declaring A) the notice dated '1 3.05.2022 (for AY 2015-16) issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 148A(b) of the lncome Tax Act (Act), B) order dated 30.06.2022 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section '148- A(d) of the Act (for AY 2015-16), C) the notice dated 30.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Section 148 of the Act (for AY 201 5-1 6), D) the notice dated 30.03.2023 (for AY 2016-17) issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 148A(b) of the Act and E) notice dated 05.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 4 under Section 142(1) of the Act (for, AY 2015-16) and all the consequential proceedings, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 1 4 and 1 9 of the constitution of lndia and section 31 of the lnsolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. lA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the ()ircumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petittn, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the notice dated 30.0b.2022 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Section 148 of the Act (for AY 2015-16) and the notrce dated 30.03.2023 issued by Respondent No. 3 under Section 148A(b) of thr: Act (for AY 2016-17) and all consequential proceedings thereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ANEESH Counsel for the Respondent No.1: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 4: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR ITD SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA W.P.NO: '10752 OF 2023 Between: VRDV Traders Private Limited, (formerly known as Vaksh Steels private Limited) having its registered office at Plot no.8l/fu::/3, Road No.12, IVILA Colony, Banlara Hills, Hyderabad, Khairatabad, Telanqana, lndia 500034 and Represented by its Authorized Signatory and Director 1,4r. Vinod Singh. (9.T, i. qTg!9eq g-s-p_gr Court order dt.07/0412025, VrdS lA No. 1 of 2025, in WP No. 10752 ot 2023) ,' ...PETITtoNER AND Secretary

1. Union of lndia, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New D:lhi Rep. by its 2. Principal Ohief Commissioner of lncome Tax, lncome Tax Tovrers, AC 3. Assistant (lommissioner of lncome Tax, Circle 8('1 ), HyJerabad, Room No.914, 9th Floor, Signature Towers, Kondapur, Hydeiabad-5000821 Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad - 500004. Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, pleased to issue a Writ of [\rlandamus declaring i) the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Sectiorr 148-A(d) of the lncome Tax Act (Act), ...RESPONDENTS lnd ia praying that in the the High Court may be respondent No.3 under i ii) the notice dated '13.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No.3 under Section '148 of the Act, and consequential proceedings thereof, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 19 of the Constitution of lndia and Section 31 ofthe lnsolvency and bankruptcy Code,2016. lA NO: 'l OF 2023 \ Petition under Section '151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to stay the operation of the order dated 13.04.2023 passed by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 148-A(d) of the lncome Tax Act ("Act"), the notice dated 13.04.2023 issued by the Respondent No. 3 under Section 148 of the Act and all consequential proceedings thereto. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI V.ANEESH Counsel forthe Respondent No.'l: SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy. SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA Counsel for the Respondent Nos.2 TO 3: M/s. J.SUNITHA, JUNIOR SC FOR ITD The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER TI{E, HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE NARSING RAO NANDIKONDA WRI-t PETITIO N Nos.ll94 10020 and 1075;2 ot2023 C OMMON ORI)ER: tper thc llon ble Sn.lt,srrce P.Sam Kosltll lleard Mr. v.Aneesl.r, leamed counsel fbr the petitiorter, and Ms. J.Sunita, learned Jr.rr-rior Standing Counsel for the respondents

2. l'he instant three writ petitions have been filed by tl'e petirioner assailing three dif'fcrent orders passed by respondent No.3 under St:ction l48A(b) of the Income 'fax Act, 196l (briefly 'the Act' hereinafter) and the notice dated

31.07.2022 issued by respondent No.3 under Section 148 of the Act along with the subseclrtent nolice dated 02. I1.2022 passed by respond":nt No'4 proposing to completc the assessment under Section l44B of the Acl qnd the subsequent notice issued, ancl also. chatlenging all consequential proc,:edings contending it to be violative o('Article l4 and 19 of the Constitution of India and also Section 3l ofthe [nsolvency and Bankruptcy Code,2016' 3 The instarrt writ petitions pertain to the same assessee in |espect of three difl'erenr assessment years i.e. 2014-15,2015-16 and 2(''16-17. Writ Petition No. I194 of 20i13 is in respect of assessment year 20 1 4- I 5, Writ Petition I I Page 2 of l4 No. 10020 of 2023 is in respect of assessment year 2015-16 and, Writ Petition \ No. 10752 of 2023 is in respect of assessment year 2016-17

4. So lar as the assessment y"u. \ t +- t 5 is concemed,, the pctitioner u'as issued with a notice dated29.06.2021, under Section 148 of the Act intimating the petitioner as regards the decision to propose assess and reassess of the income / loss for the assessment year 2014-15 pertaining to certain incomes chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act. Meanwhile, after the decision of the Hon'ble Suprernc Court in the case ol' Union of India and Others vs. Ashish Agarwalr, a liesh notice was issued on 18.05.2022 to the petitioner under Section 148 of the Act. The reason for issuance ol the notice was that, certain manipulative reversal trades emerged lrom the trading data received under the project Falcon, wherein it was seen that the assessee has undertaken trades through its broker M/s. Expro Securities and, from the said data, it was reflected of the petitioner to have undertaken both sale as well as purchase trades fiom eight unique contracts and, on furlher scrutiny, it was also found that there were certain chief characteristics which were reflected from the said transactions like: (, ldentical purchase and sale quantity 1(2023) 1 Supreme Court Cases 617 I I Pasc I of 14 (i, Hugc t'ariulnn in purchasa prit'e und sale price e i'/ a (iii) Trudev carricd out belv'een sttme parly ancl counler1turq' client A lturthascd -Y qqt from a colnter-pQrlr- cliant B' tht'n '1 sclls Y qlv lo B onlt,. \ " (iN) Time gap betwean purchase und sale transoclions fc't seconds and nol mort: th n dn h()ur. (v) Insigri;ficant change in the price of rhe uderllting scrp us compared to the chante in buv rales and sell ratcs. (t'i) T rrtdin.q sepurrtttlt in deep itt-the-nrtna.' oplions and LiteP otti<l-lhe mona.y oPli(.'ns on individual ;locks' v'hich wcre thinly lrodea (vii) 'l'he trades b|' lhese loss-mrtking enlilics' in many cos(\' corutibule to 70% lo t 00?4 ttf lt ul lrutled vtluntc lin' tha conlrocl.t rtn lht t J'4 t

5. Based on the aforesaid suspicious transactions, prin"a facie' the Income Taxauthoritiesfilundthepetitionertobeindulgedinger.eratingnoll-genuine transactions by reversing trading in currency derivatives ol''the BSE / USE duringtheprevic)usyear2013.|4andbelievingtheincorrcchargeallletotax having escaped assessment, the notices were issued'

6.Thereisn(]dispLltesofaraSthepetitionerhavingrrotreceivedthesaid notices. Moreover, it also goes to show that the petitioner irr fact had responded to the said notices by giving a detailed reply on l8'06.J'022 and' it is only thereafter.irlteradueconsiderationofhisrepty,thelncomel-axauthorities passed the ordelindel Section 148A(d) of the Act on 3l '0i '2022 ' Page 4 o[ l4 7 . Simitar, if not identical are the facts so far as assessment year 2015- I 6 ts \ concerned,whereinthenoticesissuedtothepetitionerunderSectionl48olthe Actwasonl3'05.2022,towhichalso\qhereisnodenialofhavingnotreceived thesaidnotice.Tothesaidnoticea[so,thepetitionersubmittedareplyon |8.06.2022andthe[nconreTaxauthoritiesvideitsorderdated30.06.2022 passedanorderunderSectionl48A(d)oftheAct'simultaneously'the authoritiesdidissuethenoticeunderSectionl48oftheActonthesameday itself i.e. on 30.06.2022. The petitioner thereafter gave a response to the said notice under Section 148 of the Act on 16 '08 '2022 followed by subsequcnt notice under ctause (b) of Section 148 of the Act on 3l'03'2023' follou'ed by the norice under Sub-section (l) ofSection 142 ofthe'Act on 05.04.2023 which has led to the filing of the writ petition' ,.,

8. As was the case in the proceedings drawn for the assessment year 2014- 15, in the present case also, the petitioner in t'act responded to the notices and submittedadetailedreplyon]lS.06.2022anditontythereafterthatthelncotne Tax authorities have passed the impugned order for the assessment year 20 l5- l6.Surprisingly,noreasonshavebeendisclosedeitherintheinstantpetitionsor inanyofthesubmissionsastowhyinthetwodetailedresponsesfitedbythe petitioner before thc Income Tax authorities for both the assessment years vitle theirreplyofthesamedaydatedlS.06.2022,thepetitionerdidnotrefertothe \ \ 4, Page 5 ol l4 proceedings before NCLT or the petitioner establishment having undergone the Corporate lnsolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)' It was a so not informed to the authorities about the Resolution Pqof'essional (RP) bling appointed and \ lurther bonstitution of a Committee of Creditors (Co(') to evaluate the resolution plans etc. lt was also not brought to the notice 'rl'the authorities in respect of the NCI.T having approved the resolution plan subrnitted by the successful resolution applicant vide its order dated 3l'01'20.10' The order of the NCLT approving thc resolution plan was dated 3 1 '01 ' 10?0' whereas' the notice issued tr)' the Income Tax response that the' petitioner gave to the authorities was dated 18.06.2022' g. Another aspect which needs consideration at this jun -'ture is that' though the proceedings for the assessment year 2014-15 and 2015 l6 were initiated in the year 2022, noticcs having been admittedly received by rhe ietitioner' yet no steps were taken to contest the case so far as its tenabititv in the light of the undergorle Corporate ltr:'olvency Resolution petitioner establishment Process and the resolution plan having been dut5'accepted t'r'the NCL'[' .having l0.Simitararethet.actsinrespectoftheassessmentyeilr2016-1T.Theonly improvement ber ng that, upon receipt of the notices frt 'tn the I ncorne Tax authorities on ]0'03.2023, under Section t48A(b) of the A':t lbr the assessment I I Page 6 of l4 yeat 2016-ll , the petitioner responded that they had taken the plea of the proceedings belore the NCLT and the approval of the resolution plan and thereafter contended that in view o\ the order passed by the NCLT' the proceedingsbeforethelncome-I'axauthoritiesfbrallpreviousyearspriorto approval to the resolution plan having been approved' is not sustainable and the present batch of writ petitions have bcen filed primarity on the said ground of non -susta inability of the proceedings before the Income Tax authorities' ll. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the lotlowing decisions ol this Court, in support of his contentions' viz'' l) Sujana Universal Industries Limited vs'. The Union of India represented try its Secretary and Ors'2 2) M/s. Matha Nimishamba Devi Trust vs' The State of Telangana and t,. Ors.l

12. Referring to the decisions of this Court on similar set of facts' the learned counsellorthepetitioneralsocontendedthattheissueraisedinthepresentwrit petitions is squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited vs' Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Company Limiteda which is the basis on which the 2 order dated 11.o3.2o24, in W.P'No 24895 of 2023 Order dated 11.03.2024, in W P No 15124 of 2022 r 4 (2021) sCC OnLrne SC 313 ( ( PageToll4 iudgments have been passed by this High Court as also lrv many olher l{igh Courts

13. According to the leamed counsel $r the petitioner, in view ol Section 3 I of the [nsolvency and Bankruptcy code, the resolution plan rvhich stands approved by the NCLT would be binding on all corporatt: Debt,rrs as also the other creditors including the Central Government or anY iitate (iovemment or any local authonties to whom the debt or payment ol drres are owed by the petitioner. According to the leamed counsel fbr the petitic,ner, even if they are liable to rnake any payment to the Income Tax Departrnt:nt, but norv that the resolution plan has been approved by the NCLT, the entire liability if any stands extinguished in view of the Insolvency and Bankrupt,:y Code having an overriding effect.. Thus, the leamed counsel for the petirio,trer prayed lor an appropriate reliel.

14. According to the learned counsel for the petitiorrer. once the NCI-T approved the resolution plan, its order and the plan approved, gets statutory force and is binding on all the stakeholders to whom the pel.itioner owe to pay.

15. Per contra, the leamed Junior Standing counsrel fot lncome Tax Department, refr:rring to the counter filed in one of the v. rit pet.itions i.e. writ Petition No.I I9.1 of 2023, contended that it is a case uhere tne respondents Page E of 14 intend to reopen the assessment under ceftain peculiar factual circumstances' According to the learned Junior Standing Counsel' recently the respondents received certain intbrmation from th\ investigating wing whereby it was reflected in the inside portat of the Income Tax Department that the petitioner's case was identified as a high-risk transaction with potential tax liabitities and it was in these circumstances that respondent No'3 decided to initiate assessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act'

16. According to the leamed Junior Standing Counsel' from the documents which reflected that the petitioner had certain transactions made through Shree Sati Finvest Pl/t. Ltd' which is a shell company as per the Departmental database. It was also reflected that the petitioner was dealing with shell entities with certain unexplained reverse trading as per the inforn\ation received from Based upon which' it was the different investigation dissernination reports' ' contention of the rearned Junior Strnding counsel that all these transactions with shell entities appears to have been canied out for income tax purpose and' as such, there is an escapement of income, based upon which the notice under Section 148A(b) was issued' The said notice was issued after the Assessing Officer had recorded the reasons lor him to believe that there was an ,t escapement of income I ( a Page 9 of l4

17. For all the aforesaid reasons, the leamed Junior S.anding counsel for Income Tax Deparlment, prayed for rejection of the writ petitions' tg. Having heard the contentions pr\ro,tt, on either sicle and on perusal of records. what is necessary to be appreciated at this juncr.ure is the lact that, undoubtedly the Petitioner had undergone the corporate Insolvency Resolution Process and a resolution plan was put up before the NCI-T for approval and NCLT r.ide its or.der dated 31.01.2020 had allowed the resolution plan. Under the norrnal circumstances, upon issuance of an order ol approval of the resolution plan b;r the NCLT under the lnsolvency and Banl<ruptcy code, all the tiabilities that stood due to all the creditors would stanr.l extinguished upon passing of the resolution plan by the NCLT. The sa d aspect would be applicabte in the instant case as well, and the law in this r"rglrd is by now we[[ settled, those which have been relied upon by the learred counsel lor the petitioncr stafting from the judgment of the Hon'bte Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyam Mishra and Sons Private Limited (supra) arrd those which have been passed by this High Court also.

19. Flowever, what we need to consider at this junctul'e is, the reasons for rvhich ttre reopening of, the assessment has been proposed and initiated. Going by the intbm.ration collected, it was found that the petitioner is said to have Page l0 of l4 undertaken both sale as well as purchase trades from at least eight contracts. On further scrutiny certain characteristics were reflected and alI these characteristics are what have been re\cted in the paragraph No.4 of this order. The authorities found that the transactions inter se between all these eight contracts were of similar nature inasmuch as the quantity purchased and sold were identical. In all the cases, there is huge variation between the purchased price and the sale price. Further, the trades carried otrt between the same parly and the counter party also had similar facts. The time gap between the purchase and sale is very momentary and that it lasts at time lbr only a lew seconds, if not, more than an hour. Likewise, there was insignificant change in the price of the underlying scrip as compared to the changes in buy'ing and selling rates.

20. Similarly another characteristic which was revealed Yas that of repeated trading in deep in-the-money auctions and deep out-of-the-money auctions on individual stocks which were thinly traded. Based upon these information collected, the authorities found that there are strong reasons to believe that all these fraudulent transactions reflected the illegalities those are going on and the object behind it is to evade payment of tax and the income chargeable to tax roughly amounts to over Rs.3 crores lor the assessment year 2024-15. J Pagellof14 2l.Sofarasreopeningofassessmentisconcerned,this(]ourtisofthefirrn view that there is rlo doubt as regards non-sustainability of a recovery initiated subsequent to the Corporate Insolveqcy Resolution Prrcess having been \' initiared and approval of the resolution plan, which is otherwise irnpermissible' Nonetheless. if the Department wants to have r€aSSeSSfiel'rt of the assessment order, the same is not barred under law even after the resolt::tion process having been frnalized ar-rd the resolution plan having been given elfi:ct to'

22.Theactionoftherespondentsmaybeonlybadintar,lintheeventilafter reopening olthe irssessment and a fresh assessment is done. the authorities if go in for recovery proceedings. However, the authorities canno': be found lault with if they intend to do scrutiny of the proceedings to ascertarn whether there has been any illegat, tiaudulent and fake transactions carried otrt and, ifyes, at least appropriate procccdings can be initiated against the dire,.:tod / directors who were then responsible in managing the affairs of the business. Moreover, nowhere does anr iudgment bar initiation of the proceedings subsequent to the approval of the rersolution Plan-

23. 'fhe reasoning given by this Bench finds support fronr the judgment of the Madras High CoLut wherein, in somewhat similar circums:ances, in tl-re case of Page l2 of l4 Dishnet wireless Ltd. vs. Assistant Comnrissioner of lncome-tax (oDS)s in paragraph No.29 and 34 to 39, it was held as under, viz', ''29. The Resolution Ptan submirr{ on ht'hal,f of the petitioners b}' the Insolvency Resolulion Pro.[bssirtnt irn'|tr '\cction 30(6) o'l thc lnsolvenL'y und Bankrttplcy Code, 2016 on 2t 05'2019 has nol contemploted unv" concession Jiom the Income T&r Deparlmenl though Notices undct Seclion l18o/.thclncomeTaxAct'lg6thatlalreadybeenissued<luringL,Iarc'h'

2018. 3J. The prot'isions of Insolt'ency und llunkruptcl' Code' 2016 (lBC) cannot be inlerprelecl in a manner vltich is inLtttt'vislent with onl.othcr lutt in lhe time being in lbrce.

35. There.fttre, Corporate InsoLvency Resolution Plan sanctittned and approved cannot impinge on the rights of lhc lncoma 7'c\ DcPttt'lmenl lo pasr; any .fresh Assessment Order under Section lJ8 read v'ith Sections t13(3) and t17 of rhe Income Tax Act, l96l'

36. There.fore, the proceedings under tha lntttlt'ent.) rtnd Bultkruprcl Code' 20t6 (lBC) cannot be pressed inlo service lo dilule the rights ol the Income T'ox Deporlment under the Incomc Tax Act, 1961 lo re-open lhc assessmenl undcr Seclion 148 oJ the Income Tar Act l96l'

37. In my viev', lhe lncorne 'lax Deparlment vus not prcclurled Jiont reopening lhe assessmenl completed under Seclion 143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 196l.

38. ThereJbre, these ,y'rit Petitions filet) by thcse petitioners hove to hc dismissacl. The Assessment ortlers which hut,e been passed pursuont lo lhe inlerint order futted 27.t2 20t8 are directed to he given to tfu res{ectir(! t i2022; 139 tuxmann.com 493 (Madras) 7 { // /,1 Page 13 of I4 pelitioncrs b.y lhe respondent, within a period of thirty days from the date of' receipl of'c' copl- o.[ this order

39. l/ thc 1.,('tili()nct:; ure so uggrie"'ed by such of those As:'\smeni ()r'l''rs' thc pclition('rs haw lo u'ork out\heir Appellate rent Y befbre the ('omnti.ssit; nt r o.f lnutme Tax (Appeals) under Seclion 2164 oI th': Incomc Tu-t At:l, l)61. Since the time.frtr filittg appeal would have alread.t expit ccl liher4 is 17iten tLt tht petitioners to file such appeal before the 'lppellale (ornntissitlner, rvithin a period of thirty days fror'r the date of contnlLtlictllaon of lhe .lssessments Orders. "

24. Evcn othcrwisc rvvhat needs to be appreciated ir, that the corporate Insolvency Res,tlution Process should not be permittt:d to be used as a mechanisrn to ovefcornc any misdeeds, misapproprill,tions or i[legalities detiberately done with an intention to evade tax. In t.he instant case. the suspicion is ther.e appears to be a large number of trarLsactions and reverse transactior.rs marje by the petitioner in the name of shetl cgmpanies. lt is this which needs to be verified, scrutinized and enquired. lf everything is genuine and in accordancc with law, even if there is tax evasion, the r:rder of NCLT approving the :esolution plan would come to the res<:ue ol the petitioner' However, in the case if the apprehension of the Income Trrx authorities is found to be true. then the Income Tax authorities cannot be left remediless for taking ( ( appropriate action lor the so-called mischief, misdeeds, misappropriation or illegality. Theretbre, u,e are of the considered opinion thal as o1'now it is only a case o1- reopenirrg of the essessment in the light of the ir'' fbrmation l'eceived so Page l4 of l4 far as the petitioner deating with shell companies with a mala fide intention of evading tax and it is not a case where there has been an assessment order passed lastcning tax liability on the petitioner \

25. For all the aforesaid reasons, the present writ petitions in its given fonn, stand rejected reserving the right of the petitioner to take appropriate remedies that are available under the provisions of the lncome Tax Act.

26. As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending il any, shall stand closed' However, there shall be no order as to costs. //TRUE COPY// l SD/. K. AMMAJI DEPUW REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER One CC to SRI V.ANEESH, Advocate [OPUC] One CC to SRI GADI PRAVEEN KUMAR, Dy SO CITOR GENERAL OF rNDrA [OPUC] on" cCto vli. J.suNtrHA, JUNIoR sc FoR lrD toPdcl Two CD Copies

5. \\ To 1 2 3 4 PSK. G.t HIGH COURT DATE D : 1 910612025 \ I COMMON ORDER WP.Nos.1194,10020 & 10752 of 2023 :--_-r- r',:::' ) o ,l * 16 s'EP 26 .'.tl s{-"'' l-.','z I DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITIONS WITHOUT COSTS