Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F” NEW DELHI
Before: MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLEANDSHRI O.P.MEENA
सुनवाईक�तारीख/ Date of hearing: 11.11.2019 11.11.2019 उ�ोषणाक�तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R
PER O. P. MEENA,AM:
This appealby the Revenue isdirected against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-44, New Delhi, dated 05.10.2016for assessment year 2011-12.
At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that this appeal might be disposed-off in the line of decision of Tribunal in the case of M/s. Punj Llyod Limited v. DCIT CC2- and vice versa in I.T.A.No. 5889,5890,5891 and 6084,6085, for the assessment year 2004-05 , 2005- 06 and 2006-07 dated 25.09.2019 passed by ITAT-F, Bench New Delhi. A copy of order is filed and placed on record. 3. The ld. Sr. D.R. has admitted that issue is covered by above Tribunal order (supra).
DCIT- CC-25, New Delhi v. Punj Llyod Ltd. / I.T.A.No.2109/Del/2017/A.Y.:2011-12Page 2 of 3
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. We find that the Tribunal has given its findings vide order dated 25.09.2019 which are reproduced as under:
“2.At the time of hearing vide letter dated 31.07.2019, the assessee submitted that National Company Law Tribunal Principal Branch, 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 IBC, 2016 and stated that only the National Company Law Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain or disposed off 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 matter may be kept in abeyance till completion of Corporate Resolution Process.
2. The ld Dr. submitted that he is seeking adjournment.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and also perused the application filed by the assessee.
4. Hon`ble Supreme Court in case of Alchemist Assets 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 decides to file the appeal, then such appeal is required to be filed and substituted
DCIT- CC-25, New Delhi v. Punj Llyod Ltd. / I.T.A.No.2109/Del/2017/A.Y.:2011-12Page 3 of 3 duly signed by the IRP. Further, any order passed by us also cannot have any effect till moratorium period in view of resolution 14 of IBC, 2016. In view of the specific request of the assessee, provisions of IBC, 2016 and decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, we dismiss all these appeals with a liberty to file them fresh, on completion of resolution process, if deem fit. Accordingly, all these appeals are disposed off as dismissed. 5. Order pronounced in the open court on 25/09/2019.”
In the light of above decision of tribunal in the case of the assessee company, respectfully following same and in view of the specific request of the assessee, provisions of IBC, 2016 and decision of Hon`ble Supreme Court, we dismiss this appeal of revenue with a liberty to file this as fresh, on completion of resolution process, if deem fit. Accordingly, this appeal of revenue is disposed-off as dismissed.
In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. 8. The order pronounced in the open Court on 11.11.2019.