ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 6, NEW DELHI V. THREE C UNIVERSAL DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

MA 168/DEL/2022

AI Insights

The case involves the Income Tax Department (Revenue) and Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd concerning a tax demand for the Assessment Year 2010-11. The Revenue filed a Miscellaneous Application under section 254(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking rectification of the Tribunal's order dated 16.12.2021. The Revenue argued that the Tribunal's order did not allow them to file their claims before the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) or with the Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) appointed for the assessee's insolvency proceedings. The Tribunal acknowledged a typographical error in their previous order and corrected it but ultimately dismissed the Revenue's application, maintaining that the tax demand could not be crystallized until the issues were resolved.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 774818 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAHIL KUMAR BANSAL

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MA No 168/DEL/2022 (A/o ITA No. 7827/DEL/2018 [A.Y 2010-11]) The A.C.I.T. Vs. Three C Universal Developers Pvt Ltd Central Circle -6 G-23, Greater Kailash Enclave New Delhi Part – 1, New Delhi PAN : AACCT 6175 E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Sahil Kumar Bansal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 29.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : .09.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- With this order we shall dispose of the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the Revenue u/s 254(2) of the Income tax Act, 1961 [for short, 'the Act'] for rectifying the mistakes apparent in the order of this Bench of the Tribunal dated 16.12.2021 for the above captioned A.Y. Printed from counselvise.com 2 MA No 168/DEL/2022 Three C Universal Developers 2. The relevant portion of the Miscellaneous Application reads as under: “3. The Hon'ble ITAT has stated that the National Company Law Tribunal, Special Bench, New Delhi in IB 2582(ND)-2019 vide order dated 17th December, 2019 has referred this company for insolvency proceedings. Further, it has been stated that Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta has been appointed. Further, it has been stated that the as soon as Committee of Creditors is decided to pursue this matter then the IRP should file these appeals. 4. It is submitted that the revenue cannot raise the claim against the assessee in the NCLT/with IRP until the issue involved does not come to its finalization. The appeal of the revenue has not been disposed of on merit. Hence, the tax demand raised against the assessee cannot be crystallized to make the claim against the assessee before the NCLT/with IRP. Therefore, without deciding the issue on the basis of the facts of the case, the revenue would not be in position to file its claim before Committee of Creditors appointed in assessee's case. 5. Further, it is submitted that IRP is not under obligation to file the appeal of Revenue. Therefore, there is mistake in the order of the Hon'ble ITAT. Therefore, Miscellaneous Application is preferred before the Hon'ble ITAT requesting the recall its order dated 16.12.2021 for the reconsideration of its decision and adjudication of this case on merits.” Printed from counselvise.com 3 MA No 168/DEL/2022 Three C Universal Developers 3. None appeared for or on behalf of the assessee. We heard the ld. DR and perused the contents of the Miscellaneous Application. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. We find that a certain typographical mistake has crept into the order of the Tribunal. We, accordingly, rectify the same as under in last para of the order to read as under: The word ‘IRP’ may be read as ‘Revenue’. 5. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee in MA No. 168/DEL/2022 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 03.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- [MADHUMITA ROY] [NAVEEN CHANDRA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 03rd SEPTEMBER, 2025. VL/ Printed from counselvise.com 4 MA No 168/DEL/2022 Three C Universal Developers Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi Sl No. PARTICULARS DATES 1. Date of dictation of Tribunal Order 2. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the Dictating Member 3. Date on which the typed draft order is placed before the other Member [in case of DB] 4. Date on which the approved draft order comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S. 5. Date on which the fair Order is placed before the Dictating Member for sign 6. Date on which the fair order is placed before the other Member for sign [in case of DB] 7. Date on which the Order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S for uploading on ITAT website 8. Date of uploading, inf not, reason for not uploading 9. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 10. Date on which the file goes for Xerox 11. Date on which the file goes for endorsement 12. The date on which the file goes to the Superintendent for checking 13. Date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order 14. Date on which the file goes to the dispatch section for dispatch the Tribunal order 15. Date of Dispatch of the Order 16. Date on which the file goes to the Record Room after dispatch the order Printed from counselvise.com "