Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's Authorized Representative did not appear for the hearing, citing the assessee's non-cooperation and a request to withdraw the Power of Attorney. Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) had been initiated against the assessee, and a moratorium was imposed.
Held
The Tribunal held that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect over other statutes, including the Income Tax Act, as per Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, all claims, including those from the Income Tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator.
Key Issues
Whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, override the Income Tax Act, and if the appeals filed by the assessee and revenue have become infructuous due to the IBC proceedings.
Sections Cited
Section 238 of IBC, 2016, Section 53(1) of IBC, 2016, Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR & MS. RENU JAUHRI
ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, AM : These are cross appeals filed by the Assessee as well as Revenue are directed against the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority dated 13.10.2013 relevant to assessment year 2017-18.
None appeared on behalf of the assessee, despite issue of notice of hearing. However, on record, an email dated 28.1.2026 of the Assessee’s A.R, Shri Pradeep Sharma, S.R. Dinodia & Co. LLP, Chartered Accountant has been placed wherein, it has been mentioned that due to non-cooperation of the assessee, the Ld. AR of the assessee wishes to withdraw from this case and requested to allow them to withdraw the Power of Attorney earlier filed in this case.
It is noted that proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) has been initiated against the assessee and a moratorium has been imposed by an order dated 13.05.2025 in the matter of National Asset Reconstruction Company Ltd. vs. Raman Gupta (assessee) in CP(IB)- 337(PB)2021 & IA 890/2025 issued by the Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), Principal Bench, New Delhi, under the IBC, a copy of which has been placed on record.
Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid factual matrix.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records. We find that provisions contained under section 238 of “the Code” are having an overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including Income Tax Act as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of PCIT vs. Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. SLP (C) No. 6483 of 2018 order dated 10.8.2018 by returning following findings:-
“Given section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, it is obvious that the Code will override anything inconsistent contained in any other enactment, including the Income Tax Act.”
In this view of the matter, section 238 of the Code will have overriding effect over all other Central and State statutes including the Income Tax Act and all the claims including claim of the Income Tax Department under the Income Tax Act, 1961 shall be entertained by the Official Liquidator u/s. 53(1) of the 2 Code. In the background of the aforesaid factual matrix, the Appeal filed by the assessee as well as revenue have become infructuous and dismissed as such. However, the assessee and revenue both are at liberty to approach the Tribunal for reinstitution of their respective appeals and the Tribunal shall consider such applications appropriately, as per law.
In the result, for statistical purposes, both the appeals stands dismissed in the aforesaid manner.
The above decision was pronounced on 11-2-2026. Sd/- Sd/-
(RENU JAUHRI) (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER “SRBHATNAGGAR” Date: 11-2-2026 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi