9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 491X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ’ contravenes the provisions of the Income-tax Act, as alleged by the Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-7. If the impugned Schemes are treated to be approved (Resolution Plan) under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the ‘I & B Code’ they being against the provisions of the existing laws and being in violative of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the I&B Code are illegal. Though, we find that the impugned Schemes dated 11th March, 2010 and 28th July, 2016 are illegal, however, in absence of our jurisdiction to exercise of powers under Section 61 of the ‘I&B Code’ and appeals being barred by limitation, we are not interfering with the illegal Schemes dated 11th March, 2010 and 28th July, 2016 though we hold them as illega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aforesaid Notification No. S.O. 1683 (E) dated 24th May, 2017 fell for consideration before this Appellate Tribunal in the Principal Director General of Income Tax (Admn. TPS) vs. M/s. Spartek Ceramics India Ltd. anr. Company Appeal (AT) (insolvency) No. 160 of 2017 and analogous case. In the aforesaid appeals, this Appellate Tribunal by judgment dated 28th May, 2018 while pointed out the infirmity in the Notification No. S.O. 1683 (E) dated 24th May, 2017 held that : 44. If the intention of the legislature/Parliament substituting sub-clause (b) of Section 4 (by Eighth Schedule) is looked into, we find that the executive instruction issued by the Central Government under Section 242 is contrary to the provisions of subcla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... even days of enactment of the I B Code (came into force from 1st December, 2016). All Schemes have been framed by the Board prior to 1st December, 2016 i.e. before coming into force of the I B Code i.e. much more than five months twenty-seven days back (177 days). 52. The limitation of thirty days has been prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 61 for preferring an appeal against an order passed by the Adjudicating Authority, including the order passed under section 31(1) of the I B Code . The Appellate Tribunal for sufficient cause can condone the delay but such period cannot exceed fifteen days. Therefore, no appeal can be entertained after forty-five days of knowledge of order. The Central Government, thereby cannot grant ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and otherwise not maintainable under Section 61 of the I B Code . 4. In view of the aforesaid finding, we hold that the present appeal under Section 61(1) is not maintainable and otherwise also barred by limitation prescribed under sub-section (2) of Section 61. 5. However, this Appellate Tribunal to maintain judicial decorum in Principal Director General of Income Tax (Admn. TPS) (Supra) observed as follows : 57. To maintain the judicial decorum, though we have noticed the conflict in the order passed by the Hon ble High Court of Delhi and the Notification S.O. 1683(E) dated 24th May, 2017, we refrain from giving any specific declaration about the same. In spite of observations as made above, the next question ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ution Plan) under sub-section (1) of Section 31 of the I B Code they being against the provisions of the existing laws and being in violative of clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 30 of the I B Code are illegal. 8. Though, we find that the impugned Schemes dated 11th March, 2010 and 28th July, 2016 are illegal, however, in absence of our jurisdiction to exercise of powers under Section 61 of the I B Code and appeals being barred by limitation, we are not interfering with the illegal Schemes dated 11th March, 2010 and 28th July, 2016 though we hold them as illegal. 9. Further, in absence of any provision to get the Schemes in question executed through any court of Competent jurisdiction, the relevant provision(s) having bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
