NEO SPORTS BORADCAST P.LTD,MUMBAI vs. DCIT 10(3)(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1265/MUM/2016Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 January 2023AY 2011-123 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 no litigation against the corporate debtor can continue during the moratorium period under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code. Furthermore, the appeal was not maintainable as it was not signed by the insolvency resolution professional.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was referred to the National Company Law Tribunal for insolvency resolution. The appeals were listed for hearing, but the assessee's representative did not appear. The appeal was also signed by the Director instead of the insolvency resolution professional.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals can continue against a company undergoing insolvency resolution and whether the appeal is maintainable if not signed by the insolvency resolution professional.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14,Section 140(c)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “J” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM Shri Samuel Pitta, SR DR

For Respondent: Shri Samuel Pitta, SR DR
Hearing: 17.01.2023Pronounced: 17.01.2023

Date of hearing: 17.01.2023 Date of pronouncement : 17.01.2023 O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM: for A.Y. 2011-12 is filed by the DCIT- 10(3)(1), Mumbai and M/s Neo Sports Broadcast Private Ltd, Mumbai against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C 13 with the Income Tax Act dated 08.01.2016.

3.

Further, these appeals were first listed for hearing on 19.09.2017 further from 16.11.2021 onwards nobody is appearing in these appeals on behalf of the assessee.

4.

As per Section 14 of the IBC 2016 no litigation against the corporate debtor i.e. assessee shall continue till the moratorium period is over.

5.

Further, as soon as the company is referred to the insolvency resolution process, as per the provisions of Section 140(c)(c), The appeal is required to be signed by the insolvency resolution profession. In this case, the appeal is signed by the Director of the above company Mr. Harish Thawani. In view of this the appeal of the assessee is also not maintainable.

6.

Accordingly, both this appeal is dismissed with liberty to both the parties to file the appeal, if they wish so, in prescribed manner, as soon as the insolvency resolution in process in case of the assessee is over.

7.

Accordingly, both the appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →