TaxTMI Login
🎉 Festive Offer: Flat 15% off on all plans! →⚡ Don’t Miss Out: Limited-Time Offer →
TaxTMI 
Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal dismissed as only Insolvency Resolution Professional may prosecute appeals after insolvency admission; liberty to IRP to amend.</h1> <h3>Rolta India Ltd. Ms. Mamta Binani, IRP Versus Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1 (1), Mumbai</h3> ITAT, Mumbai dismissed the appeal because corporate insolvency proceedings were admitted by the NCLT and only the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) ... Corporate insolvency proceedings against the assessee Accepted - Assessment order passed by DCIT wherein the total income return of income at ₹ Nil, was assessed at ₹401,85,41,957/- - HELD THAT:- We find that by order of the National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench in case of Union Bank of India Vs. Rolta India Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 1489 - NATIONAL COMPANY LAW TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI] has passed an order admitting the corporate insolvency proceedings against the assessee. This appeal is filed by the assessee through director of the company. Despite appointment of the Insolvency Resolution Professional, form no 36 is not replaced. Only IRP could have prosecuted this appeal or reinstated this appeal before the Tribunal. In terms of the Provisions of Section 140(c)(c) of the Act, this appeal should have been reinstated / filed by the IRP. Therefore, at present the appeal verified by one of the erstwhile director of the assessee is not maintainable. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed. However, the assessee is given an liberty that IRP after due process of law may amend memorandum of appeal and furnish it before the Tribunal, with a request for recall of this order, it may be recalled. ITA No. 2123/Mum/2022 filed by Rolta India Ltd for A.Y. 2018-19 challenges assessment assessing returned income of Nil to Rs. 401,85,41,957/-. National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai Bench admitted corporate insolvency proceedings against the assessee on 19.01.2023. The appeal was filed and verified by an erstwhile director though an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) has been appointed; 'form no 36 is not replaced.' The Tribunal holds that only the IRP could have prosecuted or reinstated the appeal. 'In terms of the Provisions of Section 140(c)(c) of the Act, this appeal should have been reinstated / filed by the IRP.' Consequentially the appeal filed by the director is 'not maintainable' and 'this appeal is dismissed.' The Tribunal grants liberty that the IRP, after due process, may amend the memorandum of appeal and furnish it to the Tribunal with a request for recall of the order, upon which the order may be recalled.
TaxTMI 
