M/S. HBN DAIRIES & ALLIED LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1833/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 June 2021AY 2012-133 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 appeals filed by the directors of a company under liquidation are not maintainable. The appeals should have been filed by the insolvency resolution professional.

What were the facts?

The assessee company was under liquidation, with an insolvency resolution professional appointed by the NCLT. Appeals were filed by the directors of the company, not by the appointed liquidator.

What were the issues?

Maintainability of appeals filed by directors of a company undergoing liquidation proceedings. Whether the insolvency resolution professional has the locus standi to file appeals on behalf of the company.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14 of IBC 2016

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “C”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Sunita Singh, CIT DR
Hearing: 08/06/2021Pronounced: 08/06/2021

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. These are the three appeals filed in by the HBN Dairies and Allied Ltd for Assessment Year 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15. Two appeals are filed by the assessee in & 1834/Del/2017 for Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2013-14 and one appeal in ITA no 5277/Del/2017 is filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income tax, Circle 11 (1), New Delhi for AY 2014-15.

2.

At the time of hearing the AR of the assessee moved an adjournment application submitted that the assessee is at present under the liquidation. The National Company Law Tribunal has passed an order dated 31.01.2020 wherein, the liquidator has been appointed and therefore, the adjournment was sought.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →