Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were preferred by assessees, Shefali Bansal and Surender Kumar Bansal, against orders of the CIT(Appeals). These proceedings were initiated under Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Held
The Tribunal noted that a moratorium had been ordered by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) for 180 days, during which no legal action could be initiated against the applicants. Consequently, the Tribunal held that the present appeals could not be proceeded with.
Key Issues
Whether the appeals preferred by the assessees can be proceeded with in light of the moratorium declared by the NCLT.
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI
Before: Ms. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA
O R D E R PER BENCH: The captioned appeals, preferred by the assessees, are directed against separate orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-28, New Delhi in proceedings under Section 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after referred to as the “Act”). Relevant details are tabulated as under:
Sl. No./Assessee’s Order appealed against AO’s order(s) name/ year 1. Shefali Bansal New Delhi - order dt. 07.06.2024 ACIT, CC-16, N. Delhi- 3580/Del/2024 (A.Y. [DIN: ITBA/APL/ M/250/2024-25/ Order dt. 17.09.2018. 2013-14) 1065477247(1) 2. Shefali Bansal Delhi - order dt. 11.06.2024 [DIN: DCIT, CC-16, N. Delhi- 3604/Del/2024 (A.Y. ITBA/APL/ M/250/2024-25/1065552703(1) Order dt. 17.09.2018 2014-15) 3. Surender Kumar Bansal CIT(A)-28, Delhi - order dt. 07.06.2024 [DIN: DCIT, CC-16, N. Delhi- ITBA/APL/ M/250/2024-25/10654763241(1) Order dt. 17.09.2018 (A.Y. 2013-14) 4. Surender Kumar Bansal CIT(A)-28, Delhi - order dt. 11.06.2024 [DIN: DCIT, CC-16, N. Delhi- ITBA/APL/ M/250/2024-25/1065553562(1) Order dt. 17.09.2018 (A.Y. 2014-15)
All these appeals were taken up analogously for hearing and are being disposed of by a single composite order for the sake of convenience.
Heard the respective submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and perused the entire materials available on record.
Having regard to the order delivered on 08.01.2026, by the National Company Law Tribunal, Court-III (Special Bench), (“NCLT”) in the matter of Central Bank of India v. Mrs. Shefali Bansal and Central Bank of India v. Mr. Surender Kumar Bansal – IA-5752/2024 in IB-382(ND)/2024 & IA-5744/2024 in IB-383(ND)/2024, filed by the Resolution Professional, recommending admission of IB-382(ND)/2024 & IB-383(ND)/2024 filed by the Central Bank of India for initiation of PIRP qua the Personal Guarantor Ms. Shefali Bansal and Mr. Surender Kumar Bansal who stood as Personal Guarantors qua the financial facility extended by the Financial Creditor to Corporate Debtor namely M/s S.S.K. Trading Pvt. Ltd., admitting with a direction of to commence moratorium in relation to all the debts of the applicants and further that during the moratorium period of 180 days – (a) any pending legal action or proceedings in respect of any debt qua the applicant shall be deemed to have been stayed; (b) the creditors shall not initiate any legal action or legal proceedings in respect of any debt qua the Respondents; and (c) the debtors shall not transfer, alienate, encumber or dispose of any of the assets or his legal right or beneficiary interest therein, the instant appeals preferred by the assessee(s) cannot be proceeded with and therefore, dismissed. However, the assessee(s) would be at liberty to take appropriate steps to file fresh appeals, if so advised, on the final outcome of the proceedings before the NCALT. We order accordingly.
In the result, assessees’ appeals are dismissed.
Order pronounced in open court on 28.01.2026.