CIRP should not be permitted to be used as a mechanism to overcome any misdeeds deliberately done with an intent to evade tax: Telangana HC

In a significant ruling, the Telangana High Court held that insolvency proceedings under IBC cannot be used to escape tax scrutiny. It clarified that reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act remains valid even after CIRP approval, especially where fraudulent reversal trades and shell entities are involved.


📜 Case Summary

Case Title: Vrdv Traders Private Limited vs Union of India
Date of Judgment: 19 June 2025
Citation: [2025] 176 Taxmann.com 80 (Telangana)


⚖️ Key Issues Addressed

  1. Misuse of CIRP
    The core issue: whether the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code (IBC) can be used by tax defaulters to circumvent statutory tax liabilities.
    The High Court emphatically held that CIRP cannot be exploited as a shield against wrongdoing—especially deliberate misappropriation or illegal acts intended to evade
  2. Reversal Trades with Shell Entities
    The assessee was alleged to have conducted reversal trades through shell entities—circular transactions designed to create artificial losses or manipulate tax dues. This constituted serious tax evasion.
  3. Initiation of Reassessment under Section 147
    Based on preliminary evidence of these trades, the Income Tax Department reassessed the assessee under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act.
    The key question: Did the approval of a CIRP resolution plan under Section 31 of the IBC bar further tax action?
    Answer: No. The court held that post‑CIRP approval does not extinguish liability arising from pre‑existing illegal or fraudulent acts.

📌 Court’s Observations & Holding

  • CIRP is not a refuge for malfeasance
    CIRP’s objective is to revive financially distressed businesses—not to grant immunity from proven tax evasion or fraud. If an entity uses CIRP to hide misdeeds, it undermines the spirit of tax law and the integrity of insolvency proceedings.
  • Reassessment under Section 147 can co‑exist with CIRP
    The High Court affirmed that the Tax Department’s power to reassess remains intact even after a CIRP resolution plan is approved—especially where there is prima facie evidence of wrongdoing.
  • No creative obstruction allowed
    The ruling makes it clear that insolvency processes cannot be creatively used to “wash away” deliberate wrongdoings—whether tax evasion, fraud, or asset diversion.

🔍 Implications for Law & Practice

Legal Fallout

  • Confirms that tax authorities can reassess even after insolvency resolution, reinforcing check-and-balance mechanisms.
  • Clarifies that IBC resolution doesn’t yield legal clean slates for pre-CIRP misconduct.

Practical Guidance

  • Insolvent entities undertaking CIRP must ensure full disclosure of tax-related transactions and avoid funneling deals through shell entities.
  • Tax authorities are encouraged: where CIRP proceedings mask potential fraud, Section 147 reassessment is a valid legal remedy.

✅ Conclusion

The Telangana High Court has set a clear precedent: CIRP cannot be a cover-up tool for tax evasion. Even after insolvency resolution, statutory reassessment under Section 147 can proceed unimpeded when preliminary evidence indicates deliberate wrongdoing

Please share

Leave a comment