Cross-appeals dismissed due to Managing Director's status post CIRP initiation. Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code supremacy emphasized.

The cross-appeals challenging the order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act for the assessment year 2011-12 were dismissed by the Tribunal. The appeals were found invalid post initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP), as the Managing Director became functus officio. The Tribunal emphasized the supremacy of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, highlighting the prohibition of suits against the Corporate Debtor during the moratorium period. Parties were given liberty to seek recall of the order post-moratorium by impleading appropriate representatives.

---

---

Issues involved:
Cross-appeals challenging the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2011-12.

Analysis:
1. The cross-appeals were filed by the assessee and the Revenue challenging the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Despite repeated instances of the assessee not appearing, the Tribunal proceeded ex-parte and heard the Departmental Representative based on the available material.

2. The learned Departmental Representative provided details regarding the appointment of an Interim Resolution Professional (IRP) for the assessee, who is admitted to Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016. The moratorium period, as per the Code, prohibits the institution of suits or continuation of proceedings against the Corporate Debtor.

3. Referring to a Supreme Court case, it was established that even arbitration proceedings cannot be initiated during the moratorium period. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's decision highlighted the Code's supremacy over other laws, emphasizing that the moratorium continues until the completion of CIRP or approval of the resolution plan.

4. The Tribunal noted that the present cross-appeals are a continuation of pending suits against the Corporate Debtor, which is prohibited under the Code. The Code's overriding effect as per section 178(6) was also acknowledged, emphasizing the importance of the moratorium period.

5. The appeals filed by the assessee were found to be invalid post the initiation of CIRP, as the Managing Director became functus officio. The Interim Resolution Professional was not impleaded in the appeals, leading to the conclusion that the appeals were not maintainable in their current form.

6. Following the precedent set by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court and various Tribunal benches, the Tribunal dismissed the cross-appeals with the liberty for the parties to seek recall of the order upon completion of the moratorium period by impleading the appropriate representatives.

In conclusion, the cross-appeals by the assessee and the Revenue were dismissed by the Tribunal, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Code during the moratorium period.

---