DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. PUNJ LLOYD LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6085/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 September 2019AY 2005-062 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the moratorium under IBC and the supremacy of the IBC. It noted that appeals should be filed by the IRP if decided by the committee of creditors, and any order passed would be ineffective during the moratorium.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, Punj Lloyd Limited, initiated corporate insolvency proceedings and a moratorium was declared under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC), 2016. The assessee argued that only the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction over any litigation during this period.

What were the issues?

Whether appeals filed by an assessee undergoing corporate insolvency resolution process are maintainable during the moratorium period under IBC, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 14,Section 60(5),Section 238

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri Akshit Jain, CA, Shri Rajat Jain, CA
For Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 01/08/2019Pronounced: 25/09/2019

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M.

1.

All these appeals have been filed for Assessment Year 2004-05 to 2006-07. 2. At the time of hearing vide letter dated 31.07.2019 the assessee submitted that National Company Law Tribunal Pr. Bench, New Delhi vide its order dated 08.03.2019 has initiated the Corporate Insolvency and appointed interim resolution professional w.e.f 08.03.2019 and thereafter resolution professional on 22.05.2019. The assessee categorically has stated that section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016 has declared a moratorium w.e.f 08.03.2019. The assessee further referred to the provisions of section 60(5) of the IBC, 2016 and stated that only the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain or disposed off ITA No. 5889, 5890, 5891, 6084 6085/Del/2014 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 M/s. Punj Lloyd Limited Vs. ACIT any litigation. The assessee further referred that section 238 of the IBC provided the supremacy of that law. It was therefore, submitted that the above matters may be kept in abeyance till the completion of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process.

3.

The ld DR submitted that he is seeking adjournment.

4.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the application filed by the assessee.

5.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Alchemist Asset Reconstruction Vs M/S. Hotel Gaudavan Pvt. Ltd. in 145 SCL 428(SC) wherein, it has been observed that even arbitration process started after imposition of the moratorium is not valid. Even the present appeals are also filed by the assessee company and not the IRP as appointed by the committee of creditors. If the committee of creditors decided to file the appeal, then such appeal is required to be filed and substituted duly signed by the IRP. Further, any order passed by us also cannot have any effect till moratorium period in view of section 14 of IBC, 2016. In view of the specific request of the assessee, provisions of IBC 2016 and decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court we dismiss all these appeal with a liberty to file them afresh, on completion of resolution process, if deem fit. Accordingly, all these appeals are disposed off as dismissed Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2019. - - (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 25/09/2019 A K Keot

More judgments on Section 14

All 685 judgments and leading authorities on Section 14 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →