The Income Tax Officer vs Shri. S. Dhanapal

Oral Judgment: Justice Sharad Kumar Sharma, Member (Judicial):

These Company Appeals are listed as defective. However, looking into the defects as pointed out by the registry and more particularly the issue, which goes to the root of the matter, which is not factual in nature, the defects would stand over-ruled.

Heard the Learned Counsel for the Appellant.

The challenge by the Appellant in the instant Company Appeal being CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 605/2025 is given to the impugned order dated 15.09.2025, that was passed in IA(IBC)/1795/2024 filed in MA No. 303/2018, as in turn was preferred in CP/577/IB/2017. The consequential effect of the order was that, the Appeal preferred by the Appellant, as against the rejection of claim by the liquidator, by invoking the provisions contained under Section 42 of I&B Code was dismissed.

The Appellant in the connected Company Appeal being CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 606/2025, puts a challenge to the decision taken on IA(IBC)/1923/2024 in impugned order dated 15.09.2025. An application IA(IBC)/1923/2024 was filed by the Appellant under Rule 11 read with Rule 34 of NCLT Rules, 2016 seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in preferring an Appeal before the Learned NCLT against the liquidator's order.

On a simpliciter reading of the findings recorded by the Tribunal, it is not in dispute that the application IA(IBC)/1795/2024 was filed, seeking condonation of delay of 399 and 215 days in filing the claim before the liquidator and to set aside the liquidator's order dated 22.05.2024, rejecting the Appellant's claim (Form-D dated 01.05.2024). It is observed that the said number of days of delay that has been sought to be condoned in preferring the claim before the liquidator is much beyond the period prescribed for submission of the claim before the liquidator.

In that eventuality, the rejection of the claim on the ground of delay as observed in the impugned order while deciding the IA(IBC)/1795/CHE/2024 is valid, observing there of that, the applicant cannot enforce the claim when the liquidation process has already been initiated. Hence, the rejection of the claim by the liquidator is upheld. Thus, the Company Appeal CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 605/2025 does not call for any interference and the same is dismissed.

In the connected Company Appeal being CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 606/2025, the Appellant challenges IA(IBC)/1923/2024 seeking condonation of delay of 81 days in preferring an Appeal before the Learned NCLT against the liquidator's order.

It is observed as per the provisions contained under Section 42 of I&B Code, an Appeal against the order of liquidator rejecting the claim, could be preferred before the Adjudicating Authority within a period of 14 days from the date of rejection of the claim and that the period prescribed under Section 42 of I&B Code is not extendable.

In consideration of the observation, which has been made by us in the above, while adjudicating upon CA (AT) (CH) (Ins) No. 605/2025, this Company Appeal, would too stand dismissed.