DY CIT,CC, 7(1), MUMBAI vs. M/S PAN INDIA NETWORK LTD., MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1715/MUM/2020Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 November 2022AY 2008-093 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that similar appeals for subsequent assessment years were dismissed as not maintainable because the Liquidator was not properly impleaded. Following this precedent, the current appeal was also dismissed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2008-09. The assessee company was ordered to be liquidated by the National Company Law Tribunal, and a Liquidator was appointed.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal due to the non-impleadment of the appointed Liquidator following the company's liquidation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 34(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, AM

Hearing: 26/10/2022Pronounced: 16/11/2022

O R D E R

PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM:

1.

This is an appeal preferred by revenue against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- 49, Mumbai dated 10.02.2020. for the AY. 2008-09.

2.

None appeared for the assessee. At the outset, we note that similar appeals against the assessee has been disposed off by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.09.2022 in Revenue appeals for AY. 2009- 10, ITA No. 1181/Mum/2015 for AY. 2010-11 & ITA. No. 1638/Mum/2016 for AY. 2011-12 wherein the Tribunal held as under for AY. 2009-10 to AY. 2011- 12 as under: - “These six cross appeals by the assessee and Revenue are for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12, respectively. 2. Ms. Vatsala Jha representing the Department submitted that National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (in short ‘NCLT’) vide order dated 21/12/2021 in proceedings under Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (in short ‘the Code’) has appointed Liquidator in the case of assessee company. A.Y. 2008-09 M/s. PAN India Network Ltd. 3. We observe that since June 2021 no one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. Only letter seeking adjournments were being filed. Even on earlier occasions repeated adjournments were sought by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. 4. A perusal of the order dated 21/12/2021 in I.A. No.1807/2020 passed by NCLT reveals that the assessee company has been ordered to be liquidated and Ms. Sonu Gupta having office at 42/1201, 11th Floor, NRI Complex, Seawoods Estates, Nerul, Navi Mumbai-400 706 has been appointed as Liquidator u/s. 34(1) of the Code. Neither the assessee nor the Revenue have filed revised Form No.36 incriminating material impleading the Liquidator. The assessee was required to file revised Form No.36 duly verified by the Liquidator. The Revenue was required to file revised Form No.36 impleading assessee respondent through Liquidator. These cross appeals in the present form are not maintainable. Hence, these appeals are dismissed as not maintainable. 5. However, liberty is granted to both the sides to revive their respective appeals after removing the defects by filing revised Form No.36, within a reasonable time. 6. In the result, appeals by Revenue and assessee for A.Ys 2009-10 to 2011-12 are dismissed.” 3. Respectfully following the Tribunal order in assessee’s own case (supra), we dismiss the appeal of revenue with the Caveat stated at para no. 5 supra.

4.

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 16/11/2022. (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (ABY T. VARKEY) लेखध सदस्य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER न्यधनिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; दिनांक Dated : 16/11/2022. Vijay Pal Singh, (Sr. PS)

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →