DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. M/S. AEZ INFRATECH PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6308/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2025AY 2006-07Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 238 of the IBC overrides the Income Tax Act, and all claims, including those of the Income Tax Department, are to be entertained by the Official Liquidator. Consequently, the appeals filed by both the Revenue and the assessee have become infructuous.

What were the facts?

Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) was initiated against the assessee under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The Tribunal noted that Section 238 of the IBC has an overriding effect over other statutes, including the Income Tax Act.

What were the issues?

Whether the provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, have an overriding effect on the Income Tax Act, 1961, in cases where CIRP is initiated.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 238

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, & SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK

For Appellant: Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CA

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA NO. 6310/DEL/2015
ITA NO. 6340/DEL/2015

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

Assessee by Shri Rajeshwar Painuly, CA Department by Shri Surender Pal Singh, CIT(DR) ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM

1.

The 6310/DEL/2015 & 6312/DEL/2015 have been filed by the Revenue against the respective orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi relevant to assessment years 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2011- 1 & 6340/DEL/2015 have been filed by the assessee against the respective of the Ld. CIT(A)-27, New Delhi relevant to assessment years 2006-07 & 2011-12.

2.

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIPR) has been initiated against the assessee, under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) issued by the Hon’ble National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT), Principal Bench, New Delhi in Civil Appeal (AT) (Insolvency) No. 849 of 2023 & IA No. 2894, 2895 of 2023 vide order dated 17th December, 2024, under the IBC (arising out of the order dated 22.4.2023 passed by the ‘Adjudicating Authority’ (National Company Law Tribunal-III, New Delhi) in CP (IB) No. 3083/ND/2019) titled Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain vs. M/s ADTV Communications Private Limited (Formerly Known as M/s AEZ Infratech Private Limited).

3.

Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.

4.

We have heard both the parties 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.”

5.

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 Code. In the background of the aforesaid factual matrix, the captioned Appeals filed by the Revenue as well as Assessee have become infructuous and dismissed as such. However, the Revenue as well as Assessee 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.

More judgments on Section 238

All 184 judgments and leading authorities on Section 238 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →