TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 662
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en preferred by the Appellant-suspended management of the Corporate Debtor. 2. Coming to the brief facts of the present case, the Corporate Debtor- Chandigarh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. which was admitted into CIRP on 27.02.2023 was initially under another management before it was taken over by the present suspended management on 15.10.2014 by Tejinder Pal Setia-Appellant alongwith others. The Appellant-suspended management of the Corporate Debtor had challenged the CIRP admission order right upto the Supreme Court, however, the CIRP admission order attained finality on 06.09.2023. The Committee of Creditors ("CoC" in short) which was constituted by the Resolution Professional ("RP" in short) held its first meeting on 03.08.2023 admitting claims to the tune of Rs. 137.68 Cr. which rose to Rs. 171.66 Cr. by the time the second CoC meeting was held on 14.09.2023. In the third meeting of the CoC held on 15.10.2023, the RP informed the CoC that after analysing financial data, he has formed an opinion on the existence of avoidable transactions. Considering the possibility of avoidable transactions and in order to make their determination, the RP had appointed PNAM & Co. LLP as the Transactio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o admitted claim of Rs. 8.82 Cr. in respect of Accord which was not in accordance with the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor as the books to the contrary showed that Rs. 5.39 Cr. was payable by Accord to the Corporate Debtor. In addition, there were several cases of duplicate/triplicate admission of the same debt of certain creditors besides admission of fully paid-up and duly satisfied claims of certain creditors. It was also contended that the RP had admitted Rs. 39.80 Cr. worth of claims which were not reflected in the books of accounts of the Corporate Debtor while genuine claims though found on record were excluded. Submission was pressed that the RP had deliberately admitted claims of bogus claimants based on sham cash receipts while abandoning the conduct of forensic audit. It was therefore contended that the RP had violated Section 18(1)(b) of the IBC read with Regulation 14 of IBBI (Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Person) Regulation 2016 ("CIRP Regulation" in short) while considering the claims. Assailing the impugned order, it was also submitted that the Adjudicating Authority had erred in rejecting the forensic audit report conducted by Baker Tilly as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the Corporate Debtor to cause a comprehensive transaction and forensic audit of the pre-CIRP period, with a view to ascertain and unveil the genuineness and veracity of all claims founded upon alleged forged agreements, cash receipts, or other suspicious instruments. AND/ OR; c) Direct the Resolution Professional to undertake a thorough and meticulous verification and re-examination of all claims admitted thus far, so as to ensure that only genuine and legally sustainable claims are admitted in the CIRP. AND/ OR; d) Pass such further or other orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case and thus render justice." 7. From the above prayers, it is clear that the order which has been assailed is only in respect of IA No. 151 of 2025 and not IA No. 2061 of 2025. It is therefore relevant to outline the prayers contained in IA No. 151 of 2025 which is as reproduced below: "A. Take on record the present IA and the accompanying Forensic Audit Report. B. Consequently rule upon the findings of the Forensic Audit Report qua the disputed claims admitted by the Respondent. C. Pass any other order(s) as thi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed at page 275 of APB, it is indisputable that does not carry the name or signature of the forensic Auditor nor does it carry the stamp or detailed particulars of the agency which conducted the report. It only carries the signature of Jagbir Singh who had filed IA No. 151 of 2025. When we see the report lacking signature and stamping of the Transaction Auditor, this does put question marks on the authenticity and ownership of the report by the audit entity and violates transparency norm which is a fundamental auditing principles. The Baker Tilly report is also replete with innumerable disclaimers which have also been reproduced at para 7(h) of the impugned order which disclaimers are so comprehensive and exhaustive that it renders the report toothless. We are not persuaded with the explanation offered by the Appellant that this report was unsigned as it was a 'Draft Report' and that they had therefore sought the permission of the Adjudicating Authority to submit a certificate from the audit firm to substantiate that they had prepared its report. However, the Adjudicating Authority not having acceded to their request on 16.04.2025, the lack of stamping cannot be held against them. W....