Director of a company does not have any locus standito to file an appeal in case an insolvency resolution professional has been appointed

Last updated: 16 June 2021
Quick Summary
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal has dismissed an appeal filed by a company director. This decision was made because the company had been referred for insolvency resolution, and an Insolvency Resolution Professional (IRP) had been appointed. The Tribunal ruled that once an IRP is in place, the company's Board of Directors no longer has the legal standing (locus standi) to file such appeals. The IRP, acting under the Committee of Creditors' instructions, must file any fresh appeals.

Court :
ITAT Delhi

Brief :
This appeal is filed by the assessee company for assessment year 2009-10 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–23, New Delhi, dated 15.11.2017.

Citation :
ITA No. 7486/Del/2017

Daily Limit Reached

You have reached your daily limit of 2 Free Judgements

Subscribe to CCI PRO for unlimited access

Why Upgrade to CCI PRO?
  • No Ads
  • WhatsApp Broadcasts
  • Daily E-Newsletter
  • Unlimited Judgements Access
BEST VALUE
2 YEAR PLAN
3,499
(Inclusive of GST)
1 YEAR PLAN
1,999
(Inclusive of GST)
View all CCI PRO benfits

Already a PRO member? Login here for an ad-free experience.

 

Guest
Published in Income Tax
Views : 117
Share Report Abuse
Comments


Recent Judgments :

  1. Typographical Error in the SCN Cannot Be a Shield for the Assessee Who Participated in the Proceedings Without Raising Any Objection
  2. Penalty on partners under Section 122(1A) of the CGST Act upheld where complicity in fake invoicing and hawala-linked ITC fraud stands established
  3. Forest Development Tax Demand, Collection and Refund Subject to Final Outcome of Pending Cases
  4. SC : Extended Limitation Cannot Be Invoked Where Department Was Aware of Valuation Facts
  5. SC : Selling Shares While in Possession of UPSI Constitutes Insider Trading Even if No Profit Is Made
  6. SC : Laser Imagers Compatible with Machines Under Different Tariff Headings Classifiable Under CTH 9033
  7. Education Consultancy Services to Foreign Universities Not Intermediary Services; Refund of IGST on Export of Services Allowed
  8. Penalty Cannot Be Confirmed Beyond What is Specified in Statutory Form GST DRC-01
  9. Non-Supply of Field Visit Report Vitiates Rejection of Revocation Application
  10. Alternative Remedy before GSTAT to be Exhausted Despite Allegation that Adjudication Travelled Beyond SCN

View More Judgments »


Trending Online Classes

view all classess

CCI Pro
Meet our CAclubindia PRO Members
Pro Member sriram devensriram devenPro Member TitusTitusPro Member Raj GuptaRaj GuptaPro Member ARUN KUMAR & ASSOCIATESARUN KUMAR & ASSOCIATESPro Member ajay khannaajay khanna
Subscribe to Pro
Join an elite circle of professionals

Browse by Category