DCIT CC 5(3) ERSTWHILE DCIT CC-36, MUMBAI vs. MR. AJIT KUMAR RESOLUTION PROFESSIONAL OF ESKAY KNIT (INDIA), 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 separate orders passed by the have been preferred against separate orders passed by the have been preferred against separate orders passed by the Ld. First Appellate Authority First Appellate Authority in respect of different assessment different assessment years.

Despite notifying none Despite notifying none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor 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 ive 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 and Bankruptcy Code have been initiated and have been initiated and M/s Eskay Knit (India) 4 &7 Ors. ITA No. 1268/Mum/2018 &7 Ors.

On perusal of the record On perusal of the record, it is seen that on previous occasion, it is seen that on previous occasion, one authorised signatory has requested for adjournment in view of one authorised signatory has requested for adjournment in view of one authorised signatory has requested for adjournment in view of the pendency of resolution process before the NCLT the pendency of resolution process before the NCLT the pendency of resolution process before the NCLT, but, we find that in said adjournment adjournment request, there is no name of the person 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 the resolution professionals is enclosed. Further we find that, as enclosed. Further we find that, as held by the coordinate bench in the case of by the coordinate bench in the case of in the case of the case of Orbit Corp Ltd. in to 2981 . in ITA No. 2979 to 2981/Mum/2020, the , 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 were held to be non-maintainable. We find that in the instant ca maintainable. We find that in the instant case also resolution se also resolution process has been initiated against the assessee process has been initiated against the assessee and and the resolution professional has taken over professional has taken over affairs of the company affairs of the company from the old