Income Tax Officer Ward 1 3 Jaipur vs Solar Voltaic Power Llp & Ors

(Arising out of Judgement and order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal, Jaipur Bench in I.A.(IBC)(Plan) No. 05/JPR/2024 in CP (IB) 52/7/JPR/2022)

In the matter of:

Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 (3), Jaipur Aayakar Bhawan, NCRB Statue Circle Jaipur, Rajasthan ...Appellant

Vs.

M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP (M/s Valente Life Space Creators Private Limited for M/s Solar Voltaic Power LLP) 58, Bajaj Nagar Enclave, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302015 ...Respondent No.1

Mr. Prashant Agarwal, IRP F-106 (1st floor), Sumer Complex, Gautam Marg, B/h Bagadia Bhawan, C-Scheme, Jaipur- 302001 ...Respondent No. 2

Present: For Appellant: Mr. Shlok Chandra, Ms. Madhavi Shukla and Ms. Naincy Jain, Advocates. For Respondents: Mr. Abhinav Mathur, Mr. Gourav Asati, Ms. Ishita Arora, Advocates.

Cont'd..../ -2-

JUDGMENT

(13th March, 2026)

INDEVAR PANDEY, MEMBER (T)

This appeal has been filed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3),

Jaipur (Appellant) under Section 61 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy

Code, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Code') who is aggrieved by the

order dated 11.12.2024 passed by the Ld. National Company Law

Tribunal, Jaipur Bench (Adjudicating Authority), in I.A.(IBC) Plan No.

05/JPR/2024, in C.P.(IB) No.52/7/JPR/2022, whereby the Adjudicating

Authority allowed the application of the Resolution Professional

[RP]/Respondent No. 2 for approval of the Resolution plan of M/s Solar

Voltaic Power LLP (Corporate Debtor)/Respondent No.1.

2. The Appellant is aggrieved by the fact that the resolution plan does

not consider the outstanding Income-tax demands and demands which

were raised by the Appellant against the corporate debtor for various

Assessment Years to the tune of Rs.3,11,11,442/-. The Appellant asserts

he had submitted all the documents through email to the RP on various

occasions, but RP failed to consider his claim and without providing any

cogent reason has allocated a paltry sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards

statutory dues of the appellant.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -3-

Brief facts of the case

3. The brief facts of the case are as given below:

i. The Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP) of M/s Solar

Voltaic Power LLP (Corporate Debtor)/Respondent No. 1 commenced

on 19.09.2023, when the Adjudicating Authority admitted a petition

under Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016

(hereinafter the 'Code') and appointed the Mr. Prashant Agarwal/

Respondent No. 2 as the Interim Resolution Professional, who was

later confirmed as RP.

ii. The RP issued a public announcement on 22.9.2023 as per

Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations 2016 read with Sections 13 &

15 of the Code in two newspapers inviting claims from creditors of

the corporate debtors.

iii. Pursuant to the public announcement, the Appellant herein filed its

claim on 08.10.2023 in Form B evidencing a claim of

Rs.3,11,11,442/, being outstanding income tax dues of the

corporate debtor. The Form B was submitted along with notice of

demand under section 156 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

iv. Thereafter vide email dated 29.11.2023, the RP requested the

appellant to file additional documents in support of its claims. The

appellant vide email dated 01.12.2023 once again submitted all the

documents evidencing the outstanding dues of Rs. 3,11,11,442/- to

the RP.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -4-

v. The RP Once again requested the appellant to furnish additional

documents in support of its claims vide email dated 20.05.2024. The

appellant diligently once again shared the documents evidencing the

outstanding dues/claims against the corporate debtor to the RP vide

email dated 30.05.2024.

vi. In reply, the RP sent a communication vide email dated 06.06.2024

intimating the Income Tax Department of the rejection of its claims

however, such e-mail had gone to the spam folder and was not seen

by the officers at all. Further, this important and significant

communication was not sent to the appellant by speed

post/registered post/ courier.

vii. The RP vide the email dated 06.06.2024 informed the IT authorities

that in the meeting of COC held on 25.04.2024, plan submitted by a

Successful Resolution Applicant i.e. M/s Valente Lifespace Creators

Pvt. Ltd. had been accepted by the COC. Further, in terms of

Regulation 13(1B) of the CIRP Regulations, the claim of the appellant

could not be considered by the RP.

viii. Through email dated 02.01.2025, the appellant came to know that

resolution plan submitted by M/s Valente Lifespace Creators Pvt.

Ltd. had been approved by the Adjudicating Authority vide order

dated 11.12.2024 and the appellant had been left high and dry with

a paltry sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards the outstanding dues of the

corporate debtor. It is submitted that no basis of allocating

Rs.1,50,000/- was provided in the impugned order despite that fact

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -5-

that the RP had been duly aware of the outstanding dues of

Rs.3,11,11,442/- of the appellant from the beginning of the CIRP

proceedings.

Submissions of the Appellant:

4. The submissions of the Appellant are as given below:

i. Ld. Counsel submits that the Impugned Order is passed without

appreciating proper facts and the same is arbitrary and is liable to be

set aside. The Impugned order fails to take into account the

outstanding dues of Rs.3,11,11,442/- of the appellant.

ii. Ld. Counsel further submits that the impugned order fails to take

into account the fact that the appellant had duly submitted its

claims before the RP along with all the supporting annexures

evidencing the outstanding demand not once, but multiple times,

but still the RP had failed to consider the same and rejected the

same without providing any cogent reason/basis.

iii. He submits that the impugned order fails to take into account the

fact that the RP had failed to provide any cogent reason/basis in the

resolution plan for allocating a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards

statutory dues/government dues. The RP despite being aware of the

outstanding dues/claims of the appellant, failed to bring the same

before the CoC at the time of finalizing the resolution plan.

iv. It is further submitted that the Impugned order fails to take into

account that these dues are of the Revenue Department and if not

paid, grave injustice would be caused to the Revenue Department, as

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -6-

a paltry sum of Rs.1,50,000/- has been allocated to the appellant in

the resolution plan against a demand of Rs.3,11,11,442/-.

v. Ld. Counsel further submits that if the impugned order is not

modified, the balance demand of Rs. 3,09,61,442/- against the

corporate debtor would be extinguished and public exchequer would

suffer for the arbitrary acts of the Resolution Professional.

Submission of Respondent No. 2/RP:

5. The submission of the Respondent No.2/RP who is the contesting

respondent here are as follows:

i. Ld. Counsel for the Respondent No. 2/RP submits that the present

Appeal is exfacie not maintainable as it seeks consideration of a

claim, which never formed part of the approved Resolution Plan and

therefore, now stands extinguished in law.

ii. He submits that the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP)

of the Corporate Debtor commenced on 19.09.2023. Pursuant to

Regulation 6 of the CIRP Regulations, a public announcement was

issued on 22.09.2023, prescribing 05.10.2023 as the last date for

filing claims. The Appellant's claim though dated 29.09.2023 was

filed on 08.10.2023 i.e. beyond the stipulated period.

iii. The Respondent 2 submits that in support of the claim, the

Appellant had provided only the demand notice dated 13.06.2019,

03.09.2021, 24.12.2018, 15.12.2019 issued for AYs 2016-17 and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -7-

2017-18. It is stated that said demand notices have no independent

existence unless it flows from subsisting and enforceable

assessment orders.

iv. Ld. Counsel submits that however, despite repeated requests of the

Respondent No. 2 through several emails dated 11.10.2023,

29.11.2023, 17.01.2024, 30.03.2024, 16.05.2024 and 20.05.2024

the Appellant did not provide the supporting assessment order in

the absence of which the income tax demand is unenforceable in law

and accordingly, kept under verification.

v. It is the submission of the RP that after the approval of resolution

plan with 100% voting in 8th CoC meeting dated 17.05.2024 and

20.05.2024 and after filing of application under Section 30(6) of the

IBC for approval of the Resolution Plan on 28.05.2024, the Appellant

for the first time vide email dated 30.05.2024 provided the copy of

assessment order dated 24.12.2018 for tax demand of Rs.3

,66,00,910/-.

vi. Respondent No. 2 submits that the fact regarding pendency of plan

approval application was also communicated by the vide email dated

06.06.2024 to the Appellant at which point of time the Appellant

had one more opportunity to raise its grievance however, for reasons

best known to the Appellant itself, it did not bother to raise the

present issue before the Ld. NCLT during the pendency of the plan

approval application which remained pending until 11.12.2024. The

Appellant remained a silent spectator and therefore, the legal

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -8-

principle ~ that "equity aids the vigilant and not those who sleep

over their rights" squarely applies in the facts of present case.

vii. Ld. Counsel submits that without prejudice to the foregoing, it is

submitted that out of the total plan value of Rs. 20 lakhs, a sum of

Rs. 3 lakh were earmarked for the Operational Creditors, which

included Government dues against an admitted claim of Rs.1,092.61

lakhs, amounting to a haircut of 99.86%. The Operational Creditors

thus received approximately 0.14% of the total admitted claim value.

In contrast, the Appellant was paid a sum of Rs. 1.5 lakh, at the sole

discretion of the SRA, against its total claim of Rs. 3.11 crores,

which works out to 0.5% after haircut. Evidently, the Appellant has

already received its fair share of the claim, which the Appellant

would not have otherwise been entitled to upon admission of its

claim under normal circumstances. Accordingly, the present Appeal

is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

viii. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Appellant's assertion that the

email dated 06.06.2024 went to the spam folder is wholly baseless

and merely an afterthought, as throughout the CIRP, all

communications between the Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant

were consistently exchanged through email, and every prior email

was duly received, acknowledged, and acted upon by the Appellant.

There is no plausible explanation as to how only the crucial

communication regarding rejection of the claim allegedly landed in

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -9-

the spam folder, while all other emails from the same sender were

successfully received.

ix. He further submitted that the Respondent No. 2 had repeatedly sent

multiple reminder emails dated 11.10.2023, 29.11.2023,

17.01.2024, 30.03.2024, 16.05.2024, and 20.05.2024, all of which

were successfully delivered and responded to by the Appellant.

These emails specifically requested supporting documents for

verification of the claim. In light of this consistent email

communication, the selective claim that only one specific email fell

into the spam folder is entirely unsubstantiated and contrary to the

record.

x. Ld. Counsel further submits that the plea regarding the spam folder

is an attempt to justify the Appellant's own delay, inaction, and

failure to exercise remedies at the appropriate stage. Even after

being informed that the application for approval of the Resolution

Plan had been filed and was scheduled for listing on 10.06.2024, the

Appellant did not appear before the Ld. NCLT or raise any objection.

The belated excuse of a spam folder issue is therefore a deliberate

afterthought to overcome the consequences of its own negligence

and cannot be accepted in law.

xi. Ld. Counsel places reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble

High Court of Calcutta in NILANJANA KUNDU V. BHARAT

PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED AND OTHERS, W.P. NO. 5663

(W) OF 2019 wherein the Hon'ble Court observed that "The internet

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -10-

allows users to categorize emails, including marking them as spam or

regular mail. Users can still check their spam folder to see if any

important emails are there. It is the user's responsibility to regularly

check both inbox and spam folders. In this case, the petitioner failed

to exercise due care by not checking her emails properly during an

online application and selection process, where all communication

was conducted online."

xii. Ld. Counsel further places reliance on the judgment passed by the

Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the matter of OPUS GROUP AB vs.

MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, W.P.(C)

No.2999/2013 & CM No. 7146/2013, CM No.6675/2013 & CM

No.6759/2013 wherein Hon'ble Court observed that " if the petitioner

had been more vigilant in checking her email, she could have

responded to the respondents in time. As a result, no significant fault

was found on the part of the respondents, and there was no

justification to interfere with the tender process at such a late stage."

xiii. Ld. Counsel submits that the Appellant's claim was never admitted

and never formed part of the Resolution Plan. Nevertheless, the SRA,

as a gesture of consideration, allocated an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh

noting that some claim was filed, although the same remained under

verification.

xiv. It is submitted by the Ld. Counsel that as of today, the Resolution

Plan stands fully implemented, and the final report under

Regulation 39(4) was duly filed and accepted by the Ld. NCLT vide

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -11-

order dated 22.04.2025. At this stage, the attempt of the Appellant

to reopen or challenge the finality of the CIRP is impermissible in

law. The law is now well settled that once a Resolution Plan is

approved under Section 31 of the IBC, all claims not forming part of

the plan stand irrevocably extinguished as per the judgment of

Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons Pvt. Ltd. v. Edelweiss ARC (2021) 9SCC

657.

xv. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Resolution Plan (Clause 20(c))

also provides express protection to the SRA from all past liabilities or

demands prior to commencement of the CIRP based on "clean slate"

principle.

xvi. It is the submission of Ld. Counsel that it is evident from the facts of

the case that the Appellant slept over its rights during the entire

CIRP period and failed to utilise the statutory remedies available to

it. However, despite repeated notices, complete opportunities, and

specific intimation of the hearing before the Ld. NCLT, no steps were

taken. The Appeal is filed only after full implementation of the

Resolution Plan and post-closure of the CIRP, rendering the reliefs

sought infructuous and contrary to settled judicial precedent. He

therefore prayed for dismissal of the appeal as the same is barred by

delay, laches, acquiescence, and non-exercise of statutory remedies.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -12-

Analysis and findings

6. We have heard both the parties in detail, gone through the

voluminous records of the case and also seen the written submission of

the Respondent No.2. The appellant did not submit the written

submissions even though time was allowed to both the parties.

7. The Appellant/ Income Tax Department contended that the

impugned order fails to take into account the fact that the appellant had

duly submitted its claims amounting to Rs.3,11,11,442/- before the RP

alongwith all the supporting annexures evidencing the outstanding

demand not once, but multiple times, but still the RP had failed to

consider the same and rejected the same without providing any cogent

reason/basis.

8. The contesting Respondent No.2/ RP on the other hand submitted

that the appellant had only provided the demand notices for assessment

years 2016-17 and 2017-18 but no enforceable assessment orders were

attached with the claim which could have enabled RP to crystalize the said

claim. Its only after the approval of resolution plan with 100% voting in the

8th CoC meeting on 20.05.2024 and after filing of the application under

Section 30 (6) of the Code for approval of the resolution plan on

28.05.2024 that appellant for the first time provided the copy of

assessment order dated 24.12.2018 for a tax demand of Rs.3,66,00,910/-.

The RP duly communicated the fact of pendency of plan approval

application with Adjudicating Authority vide email dated 06.06.2024 which

gave the appellant a further opportunity to raise its grievance before

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -13-

Adjudicating Authority, till the disposal of the aforesaid plan approval

application on 11.12.2024.

9. The appellant has stated that the email dated 06.06.2024 send by

RP regarding resolution plan approval was received in the spam folder due

to which they could not take follow up action. Per contra the Respondent

No. 2 has stated that all the emails were sent to the same email address of

the Department and they were duly replied to by the concerned officials of

the Department. It is not possible in such a situation that one particular

email went to the spam folder of the appellant.

10. There are two issues to be decided in this case; firstly whether there

is any error on the part of RP in not considering the claim of the IT

Department; and secondly whether such non-consideration of the claim of

the IT Department by the RP has led to reduction in amount receivable by

the IT Deptt. under the resolution plan.

11. It is seen from the records of the case that both appellant and RP

have been in regularly interacting through emails regarding the claims of

IT Department. RP has been repeatedly seeking the assessment orders for

crystalising the claim of appellant. However, we note that for the first time

such assessment order was shared with the RP on 30.05.2024. This was

after the resolution plan has been approved by the CoC and an application

has been filed by the RP before the Adjudicating Authority for approval of

resolution plan on 28.05.2024.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -14-

12. At this stage, also the appellant could have filed an application

before the Adjudicating Authority for admission of the claim, but the same

was not done as the appellant claims, that the email dated 06.06.2024

sent by the RP in this regard, went to the spam folder. We also note from

the record that all earlier emails sent by the RP/Respondent No.2 were

send to the same email address and they were duly responded to by the

appellant. We are of the view that the failure to file the application before

the Adjudicating Authority regarding the claim happened due to delay on

the part of the appellant for which RP cannot be held responsible.

Therefore, we do not find any laxity or irregularity on the part of RP in

dealing with the claim.

13. The second issue relates to whether the appellant has received lesser

amount in the resolution plan compare to what they would have received if

the claim was admitted.

14. The facts of the case relevant to this issue are as follows:

(i) The expression of interest inviting submissions of proposals for

Resolution of CD [Corporate Debtor] was published thrice

respectively on 18.11.2023, 09.01.2024 & 08.02.2024. In the first

two occasions no bidder applied for the same.

(ii) In the third and final time, only one Prospective Resolution

Applicant (PRA) applied, whose plan was approved by CoC in its

8th Meeting vide dated 20.05.2024. The aforesaid PRA is the

successful resolution applicant in the present case.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -15-

(iii) The liquidation and fair value of the CD was Rs. 1.09 lakh

(iv) The total size of the resolution plan was Rs. 20 lakhs and it

involved upfront one-time payment to all stakeholders.

15. The distribution of resolution amount among different categories of

creditors is given below:

S. Category of Sub-Category of Amount Amount Amount Amount No. Stakeholder Stakeholder Claimed Admitted Provided provided under the to the Plan # Amount Claimed in % (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7)

1. CIRP cost 13.50

2. Unsecured who voted in Financial favour of the 147.26 146.99 3.50 2.38 Creditors resolution plan

3. Operational Government 2072.20 1092.61 3.00 0.28 Creditors Grand Total 2219.46 1239.6 20.00 2.52

16. The distribution of the amount received under the resolution plan is

governed by the water fall mechanism provided in Section 53 of the Code.

The same is reproduced below:

"Section 53: Distribution of assets.'

(1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law enacted by the Parliament or any State Legislature for the time being in force, the proceeds from the sale of the liquidation assets shall be distributed in the following order of priority and

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -16-

within such period and in such manner as may be specified, namely:--

(a) the insolvency resolution process costs and the liquidation costs paid in full;

(b) the following debts which shall rank equally between and among the following:--

(i) workmen's dues for the period of twenty-four months preceding the liquidation commencement date; and

(ii) debts owed to a secured creditor in the event such secured creditor has relinquished security in the manner set out in section 52;

(c) wages and any unpaid dues owed to employees other than workmen for the period of twelve months preceding the liquidation commencement date;

(d) financial debts owed to unsecured creditors;

(e) the following dues shall rank equally between and among the following: --

(i) any amount due to the Central Government and the State Government including the amount to be received on account of the Consolidated Fund of India and the Consolidated Fund of a State, if any, in respect of the whole or any part of the period of two years preceding the liquidation commencement date;

(ii) debts owed to a secured creditor for any amount unpaid following the enforcement of security interest;

(f) any remaining debts and dues;

(g) preference shareholders, if any; and

(h) equity shareholders or partners, as the case may be.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -17-

(2) Any contractual arrangements between recipients under sub- section (1) with equal ranking, if disrupting the order of priority under that sub-section shall be disregarded by the liquidator.

(3) The fees payable to the liquidator shall be deducted proportionately from the proceeds payable to each class of recipients under sub-section (1), and the proceeds to the relevant recipient shall be distributed after such deduction.

Explanation.-- For the purpose of this section--

(i) it is hereby clarified that at each stage of the distribution of proceeds in respect of a class of recipients that rank equally, each of the debts will either be paid in full, or will be paid in equal proportion within the same class of recipients, if the proceeds are insufficient to meet the debts in full; and

(ii) the term "workmen's dues" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in section 326 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013)."

17. We note from the resolution plan that there are three categories of

payments which have to be made from the resolution proceeds of Rs. 20

lakhs. The CIRP cost figures at Section 53 (1) (a) of the Code and it has the

first priority in the water fall mechanism and has to be paid in full.

Accordingly, In this case the full amount of Rs. 13.5 lakhs towards the

CIRP cost have been provided.

18. The next category of creditors in the present case is unsecured

financial creditor, which figure at Section 53 (1) (d) of the Code. The total

claim admitted for the unsecured financial creditor is Rs. 146.99 lakhs,

against which an amount of Rs. 3.50 lakh have been provided, this

amounts to 2.38% of the admitted claims in the category.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -18-

19. The third and last category in this case is Operational Creditor

(Government Creditors). This category is covered by Section 53 (1) (e) of the

Code and has last priority among the creditors in this case. The admitted

claim in this category amounted to Rs. 1092.61 lakhs against which Rs. 3

lakh have been provided in the resolution plan which comes to 0.28% of

the admitted claims. Out of Rs. 3 lakh provided for government creditors,

Rs.1.5 lakhs has been provided for Income Tax Department which comes

to 0.14% of the claim amount.

20. In the present case, the liquidation value and fair value of the CD

was Rs.1.09 lakh. The resolution plan provided for an amount of Rs.20

lakhs, out of which Rs. 13.5 lakhs were earmarked for CIRP cost. Only a

meagre sum of Rs. 6.5 lakh was left for distribution amongst unsecured

creditors and Operational Creditors (Govt. Creditors). The unsecured

Financial Creditor had the 100% voting shares in the CoC. Considering the

fact that they are higher in the priority for payments we find that the

resolution plans normally provide a nominal sum for Operational Creditors

after providing bulk of the amount for the secured/ un-secured finance

creditor. In this case, the SRA and CoC have been relatively very generous

to the government creditors considering that they had provided about 46%

of the balance amount and retained only 54% for the un-secured financial

creditor, considering the fact that the unsecured Financial Creditor who

was the sole CoC Member had a higher priority under the waterfall

mechanism provided under Section 53 (1) of the Code, he would have been

well within the rights to allocate only a token amount to the Operational

Creditor/ Govt. Creditors and retain the major portion with him.

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -19-

21. We also note that the SRA/CoC has provided Rs. 1.5 lakh towards

the claim of Income Tax Department, even though the said claim was not

crystalized and admitted by the RP. For the sake of computation, if the

claim of IT Deptt. was to be admitted in full (upto the assessed amount of

Rs.366.01 lakhs), the total claim in the category would have been

Rs.1458.62 lakhs and based on their proportion of the total claim of the

category, the IT Department would have received Rs. 75,000/- only. In this

case the Department has received Rs. 1.5 lakh which is twice the amount

they would have got if their claim was admitted.

22. We can see from the discussion above that contrary to the

submission of the appellant they have received an amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh

towards their claim in the resolution plan, which is twice the amount

which they would have received if the said claim was admitted by the RP.

We, therefore, hold the view that no injustice has been done to the

appellant and there is no infirmity in the impugned order.

23. We are of the view that the present case is a perfect example for

wastage of valuable public resources in pursuing frivolous litigations by

public agencies. The Insolvency & Bankruptcy Code has been in operation

for ten years now and all the statutory authorities/ government agencies

are aware of positions of their claim in hierarchy of claims prescribed by

water fall mechanism under Section 53 of the Code. The IT Deptt. would

have been aware of maximum amount, which they could have received in a

resolution plan of Rs. 20 lakhs, out of which Rs. 13.5 lakhs was the CIRP

cost, and only Rs. 6.5 lakhs were available for distribution among all other

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025 -20-

stake holders. The impugned order had provided all the relevant details

and these were available to the IT Department. Despite availability of this

information, the present appeal has been filed and pursued vigorously by

the Department knowing fully well that this would not lead to any fruitful

result. The valuable resources of the government and Tribunal are wasted

in disposal of such appeal, particularly when there is a huge pressure of

cases. We would like to bring this to the notice of Chairperson, Central

Board of Direct Taxes for appropriate policy action so that valuable public

resources are not frittered away on petty litigation.

24. In view of the findings above, we do not find any infirmity in the

impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. Pending I.As, if any, are closed.

There would be no order as to costs.

[Justice N Seshasayee] Member (Judicial)

[Mr. Arun Baroka] Member (Technical)

[Mr. Indevar Pandey] Member (Technical)

SA

Company Appeal (AT) (Ins.) No. 286 of 2025