DCIT CC 5(3), MUMBAI vs. JAYBHARAT TEXTILES & REAL ESTATE LTD, MUMBAI

The Captioned appeals by the assessee as well as by the The Captioned appeals by the assessee as well as by the The Captioned appeals by the assessee as well as by the Revenue have been preferred against Revenue have been preferred against a common order a common order dated 15.12.2017 passed by the passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority First Appellate Authority in respect of assessment years 2013 assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15.

Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any adjournment was sought. Therefo any adjournment was sought. Therefore, these appeals were heard re, these appeals were heard ex-parte qua the assessee and disposed of qua the assessee and disposed off after hearing submission after hearing submission of the Ld. Departmental Representative. Departmental Representative.

Before us the Ld. Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Departmental Representative submitted that against the company insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings under against the company insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings under against the company insolvency and bankruptcy proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have been initiated and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have been initiated and the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code have been initiated and resolution professional has been appointed by the resolution professional has been appointed by the Hon’ble Hon’ble National

On perusal of the record, it is seen that on On perusal of the record, it is seen that on previous occasion, previous occasion, one authorized signatory has requested for adjournment in view of ed signatory has requested for adjournment in view of ed signatory has requested for adjournment in view of the pendency of resolution proces the pendency of resolution process before the NCLT, s before the NCLT, but, we find that in said adjournment request, there is no name of the person that in said adjournment request, there is no name of the person that in said adjournment request, there is no name of the person who signed the adjournment request, nor any authority issued by who signed the adjournment request, nor any authority issued by who signed the adjournment request, nor any authority issued by the resolution professionals is enclosed. Further we find that, as the resolution professionals is enclosed. Further we find that, as the resolution professionals is enclosed. Further we find that, as held by the coordinate bench held by the coordinate bench in the case of in the case of in the case of in the case of Orbit Corp Ltd. in to 2981 . in ITA No. 2979 to 2981/Mum/2020, the resolution , the resolution professional was required to amend professional was required to amend Form No. 36A for further No. 36A for further prosecuting the appeal and in absence of which appeals prosecuting the appeal and in absence of which appeals prosecuting the appeal and in absence of which appeals have been held to be non-maintainable. We find that in the instant case also maintainable. We find that in the instant case also maintainable. We find that in the instant case also resolution process has been initiated against the assessee and the resolution process has been initiated against the assessee and the resolution process has been initiated against the assessee and the resolution professional has taken over affairs of the company from resolution professional has taken over affairs of the company from resolution professional has taken over affairs of the company from the old management of the company and therefore he was the old management of the company and therefore he was the old management of the company and therefore he was required