https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783850 In proceedings under s.66 IBC concerning alleged fraudulent/wrongful trading, the AT held that where the suspended directors failed to cooperate and withheld records and asset possession, the RP was justified in relying on bank statements showing substantial cash withdrawals and related-party payments and in commissioning a transaction audit. The AT further held that once the RP established prima facie suspicious transactions, the evidentiary burden shifted to the directors to prove the dealings were in the ordinary course of business; having failed to produce reliable documentary justification, they could not avoid liability under s.66. The appeal challenging the order fastening contribution liability was dismissed, and the impugned directions were sustained. en-us Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783850 In proceedings under s.66 IBC concerning alleged fraudulent/wrongful trading, the AT held that where the suspended directors failed to cooperate and withheld records and asset possession, the RP was justified in relying on bank statements showing substantial cash withdrawals and related-party payments and in commissioning a transaction audit. The AT further held that once the RP established prima facie suspicious transactions, the evidentiary burden shifted to the directors to prove the dealings were in the ordinary course of business; having failed to produce reliable documentary justification, they could not avoid liability under s.66. The appeal challenging the order fastening contribution liability was dismissed, and the impugned directions were sustained. Case-Laws IBC Thu, 11 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783850