DCIT, CHENNAI vs. AIRCEL LIMITED, CHENNAI
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?
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
Heard together (3 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member)
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.
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
- Ramkrishna Bajaj Charitable Trust, Mumbai vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle…ITA 66/MUM/2026[2016-17]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2016-17
- Karnataka Samarpana Education Society… vs Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions)…ITA 1439/BANG/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed29 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Bucher Hydraulics Private Limited, Gurgaon vs ACIT Tp 1(1)(1), New DelhiITA 1872/DEL/2021[2017-18]Status: Disposed23 Sept 2026AY 2017-18
- St John the Evangelist Church, Andheri… vs CIT(Exemption), Mumbai, CumballaITA 5627/MUM/2026[2026-27]Status: Disposed22 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
- Richmond Educational Society, Noida vs PCIT (Central), KanpurITA 5485/DEL/2026[2026-27]Status: Heard18 Sept 2026AY 2026-27
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Shivam Tiles House vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 21 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- Dr Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Its Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr The Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Thr Registrar Prashant S Amrutkar vs. Union Of INDIA Thr Secretary And OthersBombay · 19 Oct 2026
- Vinishma Technologies Private Limited vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026