Since the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) had not yet approved the settlement plan, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s ruling in favour of the respondent, Jubilant Energy Kharsang (P) Ltd, was contested by the appellant/revenue. On November 20, 2017, the court scheduled the appeal’s initial hearing. The item was listed on January 23, 2018, since it could not be brought up on that day.
Notice of the appeal was sent out on January 23, 2018, and it became returnable on April 24, 2018. A new notification was sent on September 7, 2018, and it was returnable on December 19, 2018, due to non-performance of service. In the end, the service was finished on March 13, 2019. It is shown in the order issued via the related Registrar on the said date.
Important: Delhi HC Removes Notice Due to Failure to Provide Clear Explanation for Charges
Mr. Shailendera Singh, the senior standing counsel representing the appellant/revenue, requested an extension to receive instructions regarding the appellant/revenue’s intention to pursue the appeal.
Mr Rohit Jain, the counsel for the respondent/assessee, argued that as per the directive, a compilation of documents was submitted, encompassing the “public announcement notice” dated 19.03.2017, issued by the RP.
Upon examination of the mentioned notice, it is evident that the RP summoned various categories of creditors, including operational creditors, financial creditors, workmen, and employees, to submit their respective proof of claim by 31.03.2017.
Related: How to Reply Income Tax Compliance Notices? (Easy Guide)
The appellant/revenue failed to submit its claim before the RP. Records indicate that as far as the respondent/assessee is concerned, the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process began on 19.03.2017.
The originator of the resolution plan, specifically a party identified as Atyant Capital India Fund-1, initially presented a plan. Initially approved by the NCLT on 15.12.2017, this plan underwent modifications on 13.06.2019. The alterations resulted in an increase in the amount earmarked for secured creditors from the original Rs.81 crores to Rs.123.1 crores.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Upholds Tax Penalty Decision for Omitting U/S Section 271(1)(c) Specification
This excerpt indicates a lack of provision, among other things, for statutory claims. As a result, the Tribunal ruled in favour of the respondent/assessee.
A division bench comprising Justice Rajiv Shakdher and Justice Girish Kathpalia observed that during the period before the NCLT approved the resolution plan, where no provisions were made for statutory obligations, pursuing this appeal would be futile.
The court, adopting a “clean slate” approach in these proceedings, concluded the appeal.
| Case Title | Jubilant Energy Kharsang (P) Ltd Vs. The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax |
| Citation | ITA 999/2017 |
| Date | 05.09.2023 |
| Appellant | Mr Shailendra Singh, Sr. Standing Counsel with Ms Anuja Pethia, Advocate |
| Respondent | Mr Rohit Jain with Mr Aniket D. Agrawal, Mr Samarth Chaudhari and Mr Abhisek Singhvi, Advocates |
| Delhi High Court | Read Order |
