PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 vs. ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD.

PDF · subscribers
ITA - 485 / 2024HC Delhi10 September 20242 pages
For Petitioner: SANJAY KUMAR
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the High Court hold?

The High Court noted the ITAT's dismissal of the appeal due to the absence of the IRP and the applicability of Section 14 of the IBC. The court acknowledged the revenue's grievance that no liberty was granted to implead the IRP and listed the matter for further consideration.

What were the facts?

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) dismissed the revenue's appeal as not maintainable because the assessee was under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was not impleaded. The revenue is now before the High Court, arguing that the ITAT should have allowed them to implead the IRP.

What were the issues?

Whether the ITAT erred in dismissing the revenue's appeal as not maintainable without granting liberty to implead the IRP, given the assessee's insolvency proceedings under the IBC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

$~253 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 485/2024, CM APPL. 52751-52/2024

PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-3 .....Appellant Through: Mr. Sanjay Kumar, SSC with Ms. Esha, Adv.

versus

ERA INFRA ENGINEERING LTD.

.....Respondent

Through: None.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVINDER DUDEJA

O R D E R %

10.09.2024 1. Notice. Although the respondent-assessee is stated to have been placed on advance notice, none has appeared on its behalf when the matter was called. Consequently, let learned counsel appearing for the appellant take steps for service upon the said respondent through all permissible modes including via approved courier service. 2. We take note of the following operative directions which have been framed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [“Tribunal”] while dismissing the appeal:- “5. We find that the revenue vide Ground No. 8 had raised that the assessee is under the clutches of NCLT under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. In the order dated 8.5.2018 and 6.12.2018 passed by the NCLT, the Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) is already on record and hence the revenue ought to have preferred this appeal before us by duly impleading the IRP on record. Hence, in view of Section 14 of I & B code there cannot be any continuation of any pending proceedings before this Tribunal. Hence, we deem it fit to dismiss the appeal of the revenue as not maintainable in the present format. However, liberty is given to the IRP to implead himself on behalf of the corporate debtor (assessee herein) by filing a Miscellaneous Application before us, if he so desires, in which event this appeal shall be restored. With these observations, the This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:00

appeal of the Revenue is hereby dismissed as not maintainable in the present format.”

3.

It is the grievance of the appellant that no liberty was accorded by the Tribunal for it to implead the Interim Resolution Professional and which would have met the ends of justice. Matter requires consideration. 4. List again on 14.10.2024.

YASHWANT VARMA, J

RAVINDER DUDEJA, J SEPTEMBER 10, 2024/neha This is a digitally signed order. The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 27/03/2026 at 12:34:00

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →