THREE C SHELTERS P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE-25(1), NEW DELHI

When the matter is called, neither the assessee nor any authorised representative entered appearance. It could be seen from the record that the notice was sent to the address given in form No. 36. If the assessee is available in such address, such notice should have been served on the assessee. If for any reason, the assessee is not available there, it is for the assessee to make arrangements for service of such notice by furnishing the address where the assessee would be available, or to deliver it to some authorised person, or by making request to the postal department to detain the mail till the assessee claims the same. Since the assessee does not seem to have adopted any of these methods, we are the considered opinion that no time could be granted. Basing on the record we proceed to hear the counsel for Revenue and decide the matter on merits.

A perusal of record reveals that on 03.08.2021, Shri Chandra Prakash, Resolution Professional of Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd., filed a letter stating that vide order dated 20.07.2020 read with 16.10.2020, the National Company Law Tribunal, New Delhi (NCLT) ordered commencement of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CRIP) of Three C Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (assessee) under the provisions of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and appointed Mr. Amrapal as the interim Resolution Professional of the Corporate Debtor and subsequently by order dated 11.03.2020, NCLT replaced Amrapal by Mr. Chandra Prakash. It is further stated in the letter that Mr. Chandra Prakash has been discharging his duties as the Resolution Professional of Corporate Debtor. He further filed an order dated 16.10.2020 where under a moratorium has been imposed in terms of section 14 of the Code.

Ld. DR does not dispute this factual position.

In view of the initiation of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process in respect of the assessee and the moratorium imposed, no proceedings against the Corporate Debtor could be pursued nor the assets of Corporate Debtor could be transferred, encumbered, alienated or disposed of, no action for foreclosure, recovery and enforcement of security could be taken and lastly, the recovery of any property by an owner or lessor could be pursued.

In Ghanshyam Mishra & Sons vs. Edelweiss, in Civil appeal No. 8129/2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court held that any creditor including Central/State Government or local authority is bound by the Resolution Plan as approved by the adjudicating authority u/s. 31(1) of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 and that the Central and State Government or local authority to which the operational debt is owed, shall be the operational creditor vis a vis the company.

In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the crown debt involved in this appeal is subject to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process already stood initiated against the assessee who happens to be the corporate debtor and therefore, these proceedings cannot be proceeded with and the rights and liabilities of the parties are subject to the outcome of the CIRP. With this view of the matter, we do not find any reason to continue this adjudication process, and close the proceedings subject to the result of CIRP.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.