# In the matter of Pr. Commissioner of Inco,e Tax (Central)-3, Mumbai Vs. Raj Oil Mills Ltd.  & Ors. CA (AT) (Insolvency) No. 671-2018

> NCLAT judgment dated 2019-01-31. Citation: TCN-2019-NCLAT-00823. The Income Tax Department filed an appeal against an order, claiming they were not a party…

- **Court:** NCLAT
- **Order date:** 31 Jan 2019
- **Citation:** TCN-2019-NCLAT-00823
- **Category:** IBC
- **Source page:** https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pr-commissioner-of-incoe-tax-central-3-mumbai-vs-raj-oil-mills-ltd-ors-ca-094d9497

## Summary

### Background

The Income Tax Department filed an appeal against an order, claiming they were not a party before the Adjudicating Authority. They learned of the impugned order dated 19th April 2018, when a free certified copy was provided on 17th September 2018, and the appeal was filed on 22nd October 2018. The appellant's counsel argued that the delay of 6 days was due to the Appellate Tribunal being closed for Pooja Vacation. The Respondent's counsel stated they had informed the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Ward CC 6(1) on 11th June 2018. The Adjudicating Authority served a copy of the impugned order on the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, Mumbai, who then preferred the appeal.

## Facts

The Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)-3, Mumbai, filed an appeal against Raj Oil Mills Ltd. & Ors. The Income Tax Department claimed they were not initially a party before the Adjudicating Authority regarding an order dated 19th April 2018. They received a certified copy of the order on 17th September 2018 and filed the appeal on 22nd October 2018. The appellant cited a 6-day delay due to the Appellate Tribunal's closure for Pooja Vacation. The respondents claim to have intimated the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax on 11th June 2018. The Adjudicating Authority served the impugned order on the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, leading to the appeal. The key issue is whether income tax is an operational debt under the I&B Code and whether the resolution

…

## Issues and analysis

### Issue 1: Whether the appeal was filed …

**Ratio:** Appeals must be filed within the prescribed time limit, but delays can be condoned if

…

**Reasoning:** The court considered the appellant's explanation that the delay was due to the Appellate

…

**Interpretation:** The court interpreted the rules regarding the time limit for filing appeals and

…

**Application:** The court accepted the appellant's explanation for the delay and held that the

…

## Parties

- **Judges:** S.J. Mukhop…; Bansi Lal…
- **Appellants:** Pr. Commissioner…
- **Respondents:** Raj Oil Mil…

## Timeline

- **2018-04-19 — Impugned Ord…**: Date of the original order…
- **2018-06-11 — Intimation to Deputy…**: Respondents intimated Deputy…

---

This is a preview. The full structured summary, issues, precedents and source judgment are available on CaseEase - Legal Intelligence Simplified: https://caseease.in/cases/ibc/nclat-new-delhi/pr-commissioner-of-incoe-tax-central-3-mumbai-vs-raj-oil-mills-ltd-ors-ca-094d9497