UNITED ARTLOGISTICS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 27(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 895/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 August 2023AY 2014-15Bench: Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), consequent to which NCLT had granted morotarium in terms of section 14 of the IBC vide order dated 30.01.2023. We have gone through the same and find that as per section 14 of IBC, 2016, no proceedings against the corporate debtor (i.e. the assessee herein) could be pending before any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. Pursuant to the morotarium granted by NCLT, the Interim Resolution Professional, if any, had not impl3 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that due to the moratorium granted under the IBC, no proceedings could be pending against the corporate debtor. As no representative from the IBC proceedings had impleaded themselves, the appeal was not maintainable in its current format.

What were the facts?

The assessee company, United Artlogistics Pvt. Ltd., filed an appeal before the ITAT. Proceedings under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC) were initiated against the assessee, and a moratorium was granted by the NCLT.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the maintainability of the appeal before the ITAT in light of the moratorium granted under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 40(a)(ia)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Appellant: Mr. Abhishek Jain, CA
For Respondent: Mr. Sunil Kumar Yadav, SR-DR
Hearing: 01/06/2023Pronounced: 29/08/2023

ORDER PER M. BALAGANESH AM:

This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9 New Delhi,

[hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in Appeal No.9/10786/2016-

17 dated 10/10/2019 against the order passed by Income Tax United Artlogistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO Officer, Ward-27(1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld.

AO’) u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on 29/12/2019.

2.

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is with regard to the disallowance made u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act.

3.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the ld. AR at the outset filed a letter dated 01.06.2023 stating that proceedings u/s 10 of Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code , 2016 (IBC) has been initiated on the assessee company before Hon’ble National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT), consequent to which NCLT had granted morotarium in terms of section 14 of the IBC vide order dated 30.01.2023. We have gone through the same and find that as per section 14 of IBC, 2016, no proceedings against the corporate debtor (i.e. the assessee herein) could be pending before any court of law, tribunal, arbitration panel or other authority. Pursuant to the morotarium granted by NCLT, the Interim Resolution Professional, if any, had not impleaded before us in the present appellate proceedings to represent on behalf of the assessee company. Hence we hold that the appeal of the assessee is not Page 2 of 3 United Artlogistics Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO maintainable in the present format. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed as not maintainable with liberty given to Interim Resolution Professional to implead himself on behalf of the assessee company, if he so desires.

4.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 29th August, 2023.

More judgments on Section 40(a)(ia)

All 7,300 judgments and leading authorities on Section 40(a)(ia) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →