M/S JAY POLYCHEM (INDIA) LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI
In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The tribunal held that appeals filed by the Directors of the company are not maintainable after the appointment of an IRP. The appeals were dismissed with liberty to refile.
What were the facts?
The assessee company's notices were returned as undelivered, and it was referred to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code. An Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) was appointed.
What were the issues?
Maintainability of appeals filed by directors after the appointment of an IRP and reference to insolvency proceedings.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI ]
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
I.T. Appeal Nos. 6463 and 6464/Del/2016 are filed by the above assessee. Notices were issued at the address given in column No. 11 of Form No. 36 filed by the assessee. Such notices have been returned by the postal authorities stating that no such company exists at the given address.
The ld. DR submitted that above company has been referred to the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee. 3. On careful consideration it is found that the above company has been referred for initiation of corporate insolvency process in terms of Section 9 of the Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The National Company Law Page | 1 Tribunal, New Delhi Bench in IB 419 (ND) – 2017 vide order dated 13th April, 2018 has referred this company for insolvency proceedings. Mr. Rajnish Singh, 2019, Shiv Market, Pitampura, New Delhi-34, has also been appointed as IRP. The present appeals are found to be filed by Shri Sandeep Singh Madhok in the capacity of the Director of that company. The moment IRP is appointed, the board of the company is super-ceded. Therefore, the appeals filed by these Directors are not maintainable. In view of this, we dismiss both the appeals filed by the assessee with a liberty that as soon as the committee of creditors directs to pursue this matter then the IRP should file these appeals. If it is so decided, then we give liberty to the IRP either to make an application for recall of this order by filing corrected Form No. 36 or to file the fresh appeals with the condonation of delay request. Accordingly, both the appeals filed are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on : 13/09/2021.
More judgments on Section 9
- Kohler Co., United States of America vs DCIT, International Taxation, Circle1(2)…ITA 185/BANG/2025[2020-2021]Status: Disposed27 Aug 2026AY 2020-2021
- ACIT, Delhi vs Gamma Pizzakraft Lanka (Private) Limited…ITITA 27/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- ACIT, New Delhi vs Gamma Pizzakraft Lanka (Private) Limited…ITITA 26/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: Disposed12 Aug 2026AY 2016-17
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)… vs Mercedes-Benz Group Ag, MumbaiITA 2879/MUM/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2020-21
- Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax)… vs Mercedes-Benz Group Ag, MumbaiITA 2878/MUM/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed30 Jul 2026AY 2018-19
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- Akshaya Consortium vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Andhra Pradesh · 28 Oct 2026
- Dipanshu Aggarwal vs. Director General Of GST IntelligenceDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Dezinetree Projects PVT. LTD. vs. Spokes Digital Inc And AnrDelhi · 28 Oct 2026
- Jaydeep Jayantilal Hudaka vs. State Of GujaratGujarat · 28 Oct 2026