DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, NEW DELHI, JHANDEWALAN EXTN. ARA CENTRE vs. MAHAGUN INDIA PVT. LTD., VIVEK VIHAR

At the time of hearing, Ld. AR has submitted that Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIPR) has been initiated against the assessee, vide Order under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) issued by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), New Delhi Bench, Court-III (Special Court) in IB-112(ND)/2025 dated 05.08.2025, titled IDBI Trusteeship Services Limited vs. Mahagun (India) Private Limited.

Ld. DR did not controvert the aforesaid proposition.

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.”

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 Assessee as well as Revenue have become infructuous and dismissed as such. However, the Assessee as well as 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.