Condonation of Delay: directoral disputes and pending company proceedings can constitute reasonable cause, allowing a belated return to be treated as ...
Revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 upheld; faceless assessments subject to revision when AO fails requisite enquiries, remitted for fresh asse...
Limited scope of processing under section 143(1): enhancement without show cause is unsustainable; remand for residency, taxation and TDS verification...
An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and time runs from the date of default. The Court held that limitation began when the accounts were classified as NPA on 06.12.2016, not from the later end of SARFAESI proceedings. After excluding the moratorium period under Section 60(6) and the Covid-related exclusion orders, the petition was still filed beyond the remaining limitation period and was time-barred. The Court also held that admission of a claim by the IRP/RP is only an administrative act and does not amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which requires a conscious admission by the debtor or authorised person before limitation expires.
An application under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, and time runs from the date of default. The Court held that limitation began when the accounts were classified as NPA on 06.12.2016, not from the later end of SARFAESI proceedings. After excluding the moratorium period under Section 60(6) and the Covid-related exclusion orders, the petition was still filed beyond the remaining limitation period and was time-barred. The Court also held that admission of a claim by the IRP/RP is only an administrative act and does not amount to acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, which requires a conscious admission by the debtor or authorised person before limitation expires.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.