Held that the Commissioner (Appeals), without going into the merits, deleted the addition as not sustainable in terms of section 33(5) of the Code, on the ground that the assessee was undergoing liquidation. On appeal the Tribunal held that   the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner (Appeals) had knowledge of the fact that the assessee, the corporate debtor had gone into liquidation by order dated December 4, 2018 passed under section 33 of the Code by the National Company Law Tribunal and had appointed the official liquidator of the corporate debtor. The Commissioner (Appeals) had erred in not adjudicating the matter on the merits, since it was with respect to the determination of tax dues only, especially when the liquidator himself was pursuing the matter before the first appellate authority. The matter is  restored to the Commissioner (Appeals) for disposal on the merits in accordance with law after affording the assessee (corporate debtor) an opportunity of hearing through the liquidator.  The non obstante clause in section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 clarifies that the Code shall have the effect of overriding the provisions of other laws. Section 178(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as amended with effect from November 1, 2016, makes it clear that the Code will override the provisions of the Act. The Income-tax authorities have limited jurisdiction to assess or determine the quantum of Income-tax dues but have no authority to initiate recovery of such dues at its own during the period of moratorium in violation of section 14 or section 33(5) of the Code. The Income-tax authorities are like any other creditor, may stake their claim before liquidator or adjudicatory authority as the case may be, within the statutory limitation period provided under the Code for substantiating its claim under the waterfall mechanism related to the order of priority as provided under section 53 of the Code. (AY.2012-13)