Cross appeals challenging Income Tax Act orders dismissed during insolvency proceedings due to moratorium period.

The Tribunal dismissed the cross appeals challenging Income Tax Act orders due to the ongoing moratorium period and insolvency proceedings, emphasizing the Code's provisions' overriding effect and the necessity of proper party representation. The Director of the company became functus officio post CIRP initiation, and the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded, rendering the appeals not maintainable. Parties were granted the option to seek order recall upon moratorium completion by involving relevant parties like the Managing Director or Official Liquidator.

---

---

Issues:
Challenges to orders under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for multiple assessment years due to ongoing insolvency proceedings and moratorium period.

Analysis:
The cross appeals were filed challenging orders under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for various assessment years. The assessee's matter was pending before the Insolvency Professional under The Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, with a declared moratorium period. A petition was filed against the assessee before the National Company Law Tribunal, leading to the commencement of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process. The Hon'ble NCLT declared a moratorium period under the Code. The learned Authorised Representative requested adjournment of the appeals due to the ongoing CRIP and moratorium. The Hon'ble Supreme Court precedent established that no suits or proceedings could continue against a Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period.

The Hon'ble Calcutta High Court decision highlighted the need to keep proceedings in abeyance during insolvency proceedings and the effect of Section 14 of the Code. The court emphasized that assessment orders passed during the moratorium period should be set aside and proceedings kept in abeyance until the completion of insolvency resolution proceedings. However, the Delhi High Court clarified that the Code's provisions prevail over other laws, prohibiting the institution or continuation of suits or proceedings against the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period.

The appeals filed by the assessee were found to be not maintainable as the Director of the company became functus officio after CIRP initiation, and the Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals, following the precedent set by the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court, with the provision for parties to seek recall of the order upon completion of the moratorium period by impleading relevant parties like the Managing Director or Official Liquidator.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the cross appeals due to the ongoing moratorium period and insolvency proceedings, emphasizing the overriding effect of the Code's provisions and the need for proper party representation in such cases.

---