ROLTA INDIA LTD,MUMBAI vs. DY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), MUMBSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2123/MUM/2022Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 July 2023AY 2018-193 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal held that the appeal, filed by an erstwhile director instead of the IRP, was not maintainable. The IRP should have prosecuted or reinstated the appeal.

What were the facts?

Rolta India Ltd. filed an appeal for AY 2018-19 against an assessment order. The company was undergoing corporate insolvency proceedings, and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) had been appointed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to the appointment of an IRP and the appeal not being filed or reinstated by the IRP.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 140(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JM

For Appellant: Shri Renu Kapoor, AR
For Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar, CIT DR
Hearing: 18.07.2023Pronounced: 20.07.2023
1.

Rolta India Ltd for A.Y. 2018-19 against the assessment order passed by the Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, 1(1), Mumbai, dated 25th July, 2022, wherein the total income return of income on 29th November, 2019, at ₹ Nil, was assessed at ₹401,85,41,957/-.

3.

However, we find that by order dated 19th January, 2023, of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in case of Union Bank of India Vs. Rolta India Ltd. has passed an order admitting the corporate insolvency proceedings against the assessee. This appeal is filed by the assessee through director of the company namely Mr. Kamal K Singh. Despite appointment of the Insolvency Resolution Professional, form no 36 is not replaced. Only IRP could have prosecuted this appeal or reinstated this appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of the Provisions of Section 140(c) (c) of the Act, this appeal should have been reinstated / filed by the IRP. Therefore, at present the appeal verified by one of the erstwhile director of the assessee is not maintainable. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, the assessee is given an liberty that IRP after due process of law may amend memorandum of appeal and furnish it before the Tribunal, with a request for recall of this order, it may be recalled. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as not maintainable.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 20.07.2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →