TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (1) TMI 286
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....essee are dismissed by the ld CIT (A) as Non maintainable as those were delayed rejecting the application of condonation holding that there is no sufficient cause of such delay. These appeals involve common grounds and same arguments are made by both the sides and therefore, disposed of by these common order. 02. Seven Appeals are :- i. ITA No. 1862/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year 2006-07 is filed against the order of CIT(A) dated 29.07.2020, wherein the order passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, CC-10 (Now CC2/4). The learned Assessing Officer passed under section 143(3) of the Act on 31.03.2014. The appeal of the assessee against that order is dismissed as not admitted. ii. ITA No. 1863/Mum/2020 for Assess....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Officer on 31.03.2014 was held to be not maintainable and hence dismissed. 03. As stated by parties that facts and issues involved in all these seven appeal are common and identical, we set out facts for AY 2006-07 and apply decision arrived in that appeal to the other appeals. ITA No. 1862/Mum/2020 for Assessment Year 2006-07. The brief facts of the case shows that the assessee company is engaged in the business of manufacture and dealer of chemicals, filed its return of income on 30.11.2006 declaring total income of Rs.37,73,44,953/- and the book profit under section 115JB was also disclosed at Rs.151,34,9970/-. The action under section 132 of the Income-Tax Act took place in the case of the assessee along with other group entities and....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the assessee was held to be not maintainable and hence, dismissed. The assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred the appeal before us. 07. At the time of hearing, the learned authorized representative filed a paper book that states that National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) has passed an order on 11.06.2018, wherein an interim resolution Professional has been appointed under IBC-2016. He referred to Para No.13 of that order to show that the petition was filed on 22.02.2006 and order is passed on 11.06.2008, whereas the order of the learned CIT (A) is passed on 29.07.2020. He further referred to the order of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) in the above case dated 18.11.2019, which clearly shows that resolu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....06.2018; the boards of directors were suspended and interim resolution process started by appointing IRP. However, the present appeals were filed under the signature of the director at the insistence of the IRP. To support his contentions, He submitted copies of e-mails and letter dated 22.12.2021 of IRP stating that the director, who signed appeals, was authorized to file the appeals at that time. Therefore, his submission was that the Director, who signed these appeals was authorized by IRP to present this appeals before ITAT. He further submitted another letter dated 20.12.2021, wherein he submitted revised from No.36, wherein the appeal was presented by the official liquidator of the assessee company. He submitted that Insolvency resolu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....solvency and Bankruptcy Code 2016. This is for the reason that the section 14 prohibits even continuation of proceedings during moratorium against the corporate debtor. In view of this, the order of the learned CIT(A) in not admitting the appeal of the assessee is in contravention of Section 14 of the IBC and therefore not sustainable. Thus, we allow the appeal of the assessee with respect to the ground No.1 of the appeal and restore these appeals back to the file of the learned CIT (A) to decide the issue afresh. He also directed now that as an official liquidator has been appointed, the respective notice for the hearing etc are also requiring to be addressed to the official liquidator. The assessee is also directed to place before the lea....