DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AIRCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 215/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 January 2022AY 2005-063 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal. The appeals and cross-objection were restored to the file of the CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after considering the NCLT orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee approached the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for resolution, leading to a moratorium on actions against the company. The assessee's appeal was filed with a delay of 98 days due to the suspension of the Board of Directors' powers.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal filed with delay due to insolvency proceedings should be admitted and whether the CIT(A) should reconsider the case based on NCLT orders.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 13,Section 14

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

For Appellant: Shri. Ashik Shah (CA) – Ld. AR
For Respondent: Shri M. Rajan- Ld. CIT-DR

Heard together (3 matters)

ITA No. 2038/Chny/2018
CO No. 39/Chny/2017
ITA No. 215/Chny/2017

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)

1.

During hearing of captioned matters, Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has approached Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for a resolution and a resolution professional has already been appointed. On account of the said order, a moratorium has been imposed with regard to any action against the company in terms of Sec.13 r.w.s. 14 of the code. It was further submitted that the assessee is at advanced stage of insolvency resolution process and resolution petition is expected to be decided in next couple of months. The Ld. AR also submitted that in similar factual background, the other appeals concerning assessee has already been restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after considering the orders of Hon’ble NCLT. The Ld. AR also drew attention to the fact that the assessee’s appeal has been filed with a delay of 98 days, which may be condoned since the powers of the Board of Directors stood suspended and were exercised by resolution professional. The Ld. CIT-DR could not controvert these facts.

2.

Keeping in view the aforesaid submissions, the delay of 98 days in assessee’s appeal stand condoned. At the same time, captioned appeals as well as cross-objection stand restored back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass fresh orders after considering the orders of Hon’ble NCLT as submitted by Ld. AR.

More judgments on Section 13

All 783 judgments and leading authorities on Section 13 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →