Facts of the
Case
The Revenue Department filed multiple Income Tax
Appeals before the Delhi High Court challenging the order passed by the Income
Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) relating to the tax liability of Monnet Ispat
& Energy Ltd. During the pendency of these appeals, the National Company
Law Tribunal admitted an insolvency petition under Section 7 of the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code against the respondent company and declared a moratorium
under Section 14 of the Code. The issue arose as to whether the pending tax appeals
could proceed despite such moratorium.
Issues Involved
- Whether pending income tax appeals fall within the scope of
“proceedings” prohibited under Section 14(1)(a) of the Insolvency and
Bankruptcy Code, 2016?
- Whether the Income Tax Department can continue appellate
proceedings against a corporate debtor after commencement of CIRP?
- Whether the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code overrides the provisions
of the Income Tax Act in case of inconsistency?
Petitioner’s Arguments (Revenue Department)
- The Revenue contended that the tax appeals were filed for
adjudication of tax liability and should not be treated at par with
ordinary civil suits.
- It was argued that unlike earlier insolvency laws, the Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code does not provide any mechanism for obtaining
permission from the NCLT for continuation of pending proceedings in other
forums.
- The Department sought preservation of its right to continue the
appeals at an appropriate stage.
Respondent’s Arguments (Assessee/Corporate Debtor)
- The respondent relied upon the moratorium order passed by the NCLT
under Section 14 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
- It was submitted that once CIRP commences, all pending proceedings
against the corporate debtor are prohibited.
- The respondent emphasized that Section 238 of the IBC gives
overriding effect to the Code over all inconsistent laws, including tax
statutes.
Court Findings / Observations
The Delhi High Court observed that:
- Section 14(1)(a) clearly prohibits institution or continuation of
pending suits or proceedings against the corporate debtor after insolvency
commencement.
- The term “proceedings” is broad enough to include income tax
appellate proceedings.
- Section 238 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code gives the Code
overriding effect over inconsistent provisions contained in any other law.
- Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court judgment in Innoventive
Industries Ltd. vs ICICI Bank, wherein the overriding nature of IBC
was clarified.
- Since the NCLT had already admitted the insolvency petition and
declared moratorium, continuation of tax appeals would be impermissible
during the moratorium period.
Court Order / Final Decision
The Delhi High Court disposed of the income tax
appeals with liberty to the Income Tax Department to revive the appeals subject
to further orders passed by the National Company Law Tribunal. Thus, the
proceedings were not adjudicated on merits but were kept in abeyance due to the
statutory moratorium under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code.
Important Clarification
- Income tax proceedings are covered within the ambit of
“proceedings” under Section 14 IBC when initiated or continued against the
corporate debtor.
- The moratorium under IBC has overriding effect even over tax
proceedings.
- Revenue authorities must await the outcome of CIRP or further NCLT
directions before reviving appeals.
- This judgment strengthens the legislative intent behind IBC to
preserve the corporate debtor during insolvency resolution.
Sections Involved
Insolvency
and Bankruptcy Code, 2016
- Section 7 – Initiation of Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process
by Financial Creditor
- Section 14 – Moratorium
- Section 31 – Approval of Resolution Plan
- Section 33 – Liquidation
- Section 238 – Overriding Effect of the Code
Income Tax
Act, 1961
- Appellate provisions relating to Revenue Appeals before High Court
Link to download the order -https://delhihighcourt.nic.in/app/case_number_pdf/2017:DHC:8936-DB/SMD04092017ITA5332017_162641.pdf
Disclaimer
This content is shared strictly for general
information and knowledge purposes only. Readers should independently verify
the information from reliable sources. It is not intended to provide legal,
professional, or advisory guidance. The author and the organisation disclaim
all liability arising from the use of this content. The material has been
prepared with the assistance of AI tools.
0 Comments
Leave a Comment