ACIT, CIRCLE- 14(2), NEW DELHI vs. KUBER MUTUAL BENEFITS LTD., DELHI
In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the appeals were bad for non-joinder of an essential party, the official liquidator. Therefore, the appeals were dismissed as defective.
What were the facts?
The appeals filed by both the assessee and the revenue were found to be defective as the official liquidator, who is a necessary party for a company under liquidation, had not been impleaded. This issue had been previously decided by a coordinate bench in similar circumstances.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal filed by or against a company under liquidation is maintainable without impleading the official liquidator as a party.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘C’ : NEW DELHI
Before: SH. N.K.BILLAIYA & SH.ANUBHAV SHARMA
Heard together (2 matters)
Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.
Heard and perused the record.
It comes up that on 04 January, 2023, the bench has passed following order :- “The Ld. counsel for the assessee seeks dismissal of revenue appeal and also assessee appeal for the reason that official liquidator has not been impleaded for pursing the appeal. The respective appeals filed by both the sides are inherently defective and cannot be proceed with. The order of Co-ordinate Bench similar circumtance in IT No. 1110/D/2011 and others order dated 14/02/2014 was referred to. The Revenue seeks time to examine the argument of the assessee and place its stance on record. The matter is adjourned to 23-Mar-2023 (Thursday). Sd/- Sd/- Anubhav Sharma Pradip Kumar Kedia Judicial Member Accountant Member” Thereafter case was listed on 23rd March, 2023 but there was no 3. compliance. Today adjournment is sought by Ld. CIT-DR submitting that in terms of order of the bench dated 04.01.2023 the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has been asked to submit a report on the issue and provide a copy of NCLT order. In this context, it can be observed that in assessee’s own case for A.Y. 1996-97, and A.Y. 2099-2000 ITA no. 1111/Del/2011 respectively the issue about necessity of Official liquidator as party has been adjudicated vide order dated 14.02.2014 by following observations in para no. 5 reproduced as under : “5. We have considered the facts as far as the maintainability of the appeal is concerned. It is not in dispute that the assessee company is under liquidation and an official liquidator stands already appointed by the order of the Hon’ble Court. As per Companies Act, 1956, no doubt, powers of liquidator which includes the power to defend legal proceedings, civil or criminal are to be in the name and on behalf of the company. Section 178 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein after ‘the Act’) recognizes the official liquidator as the concerned person in the case company is under liquidation. So it can be seen that the official liquidator has to defend the case if any filed against the company. In this case the revenue has filed the appeal against the assessee company without bringing the official liquidator in the array of parties. Therefore without notice to him, the official liquidator
would not be in a position defend any case filed against it. Therefore the appeal preferred by the revenue against the assessee company without bringing the official liquidator is bad for non-jointer of essential party. Therefore we hold that appeals preferred/by the Revenue in the instance cases as non-maintainable and therefore dismissed. Further we give liberty to the department to file fresh appeal by bringing on record the official liquidator if advised so.”
In the light of aforesaid as the parties have failed to bring on record the official liquidator, being a necessary party. The appeals are dismissed being defective with liberty to get the same restored as per law in case parties intend to contest by impleading the official liquidator.
More judgments on Section 178
- Bansal Oil Mill Ltd., Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-4, JaipurITA 1252/JPR/2024[2009-10]Status: Disposed17 Mar 2025AY 2009-10
- Gigeo Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Nagpur vs ACIT, Central Circle- 1(3), NagpurITA 97/NAG/2017[2003-04]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2024AY 2003-04
- Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, NagpurITA 488/NAG/2016[2009-10]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2024AY 2009-10
- Dy. C.I.T. Central Cir.-1(3), Nagpur vs M/S Gigeo Construction Co.Pvt. Ltd, NagpurITA 486/NAG/2016[2007-08]Status: Disposed9 Sept 2024AY 2007-08
- DCIT, Circle - 8(1), Kolkata vs M/S. Pks Limited, KolkataITA 1801/KOL/2018[2011-12]Status: Disposed9 Aug 2024AY 2011-12
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- M/S Rentex Polymers Private Limited vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Central Goods And Services TaxDelhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Maa Shila Traders vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S Ashish Enterprises vs. Assistant Commissioner Gsto Ward No. 86Delhi · 29 Oct 2026
- M/S. Bhanwal Trading And Company vs. The Union Of INDIARajasthan · 28 Oct 2026
- M/S. Saraswati Enterprises vs. State Of RajasthanRajasthan · 28 Oct 2026