What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the appeals were not maintainable in their current form as the company was in liquidation and the official liquidator had not been substituted as the respondent. The Revenue was granted liberty to refile with appropriate amendments.

The Revenue filed appeals against the CIT(A) orders for assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13. The assessee company, Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd., was undergoing liquidation proceedings as per an NCLT order.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of appeals against a company undergoing liquidation proceedings. Proper substitution of parties in appeals when a corporate debtor is in liquidation.

A.C.I.T. Cir. 6(2)(2) vs Doshion Veolia Water Solutions P… | ITAT Mumbai 2023

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI & SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

For Appellant: Ms. Swati Pandey

For Respondent: Smt. Riddhi Mishra

The present appeals have been filed by the Revenue challenging the separate impugned orders dated 04/12/2017 and 24/10/2017, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–12, Mumbai [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2012-13, respectively.

When these appeals were called for hearing, the learned AR placed on record order dated 20/09/2021 in IA 1921 of 2019 in CP(IB) 1752/MB/C- II/2017, in Bank of Baroda (as a Financial Creditor) vs Doshion Water Solution

Doshion Veolia Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITA no.78/Mum./2018 ITA no.1503/Mum./2018 Private Limited (as Corporate Debtor) passed by the Hon‟ble National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench, Court-II (“Hon’ble NCLT”), in an application for appointment of liquidator filed by the Resolution Professional under the instructions of the Committee of Creditors. From the perusal of the aforesaid order, we find that the Hon‟ble NCLT admitted the aforesaid application initiating the liquidation process against the Corporate Debtor and appointing Mr. Vikas Jain as a liquidator.

From the perusal of Form No.36B filed by the Revenue in the present appeals, we find that the company (i.e. the Corporate Debtor) has been made as „Respondent’ despite commencement of liquidation process in the case of the company. If the Revenue wants to pursue these appeals, then the „official liquidator‟ be substituted as a Respondent. Accordingly, in view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the present appeals, in their current form, are not maintainable. Therefore, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the Revenue that if in the future they prefer to pursue these appeals, the correct Form No.36B is required to be filed with the appropriate prayers.

In the result, both appeals by the Revenue are dismissed with the above directions. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/02/2023

A.C.I.T. CIR. 6(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. DOSHION VEOLIA WATER SOLUTIONS P. LTD., MUMBAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments