Authority: National Company Law Tribunal Chandigarh Bench (Court-II)

Order Date: 10 July 2026

Case Overview

The application was filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Hisar Circle, against Mr. Darshan Singh Anand, the Resolution Professional (RP) of M/s Vikas WSP Ltd., which is undergoing Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP). The CIRP was initiated on 02 February 2022 based on a petition filed by Bank of India under Section 7 of the IBC.

The Applicant (Income Tax Department) sought directions for the RP to admit and consider an updated income tax claim of ₹268.73 crores (Rupees Two Hundred Sixty-Eight Crore Seventy-Three Lakh Forty-Four Thousand Three Hundred Twenty-Eight Only), which represented an enhancement of ₹76.17 crores over its originally admitted claim of ₹192.55 crores. This enhancement was based on assessment/reassessment orders passed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, during the moratorium period for Assessment Years 2013-14 (₹11.75 crores), 2018-19 (₹61.94 crores net additional liability), and 2020-21 (₹2.47 crores). The Applicant argued that assessment proceedings to determine the quantum of dues are not barred by the moratorium under Section 14 of the IBC, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Sundaresh Bhatt, Liquidator of ABG Shipyard Ltd. v. Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs.

The Respondent (RP) rejected this enhanced claim on 23 September 2025, citing that it was filed 1308 days after the insolvency commencement date and long after the Committee of Creditors (CoC) had approved a resolution plan on 25 August 2022. The RP argued that admitting such a belated claim would violate the time-bound framework of the IBC and contradict settled law established by the Supreme Court in Committee of Creditors of Essar Steel India Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Gupta and RPS Infrastructure Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar & Anr., which caution against allowing "hydra-headed" undecided claims to emerge after CoC approval.

Final Outcome

The NCLT Chandigarh Bench dismissed the application (IA(I.B.C.)/1870(CH)2025). The Tribunal concurred with the RP's decision, upholding the rejection of the enhanced claim. While acknowledging the authority of statutory bodies like the Income Tax Department to assess and determine dues during the moratorium period, the Tribunal emphasized that the admission of any resulting claim into the CIRP is strictly governed by the timelines and procedural framework of the IBC. Filing a claim nearly three years after CoC approval was deemed irreconcilable with the IBC's principles of certainty and finality. Permitting the claim would have unsettled the commercial wisdom of the CoC and the financial matrix of the already-approved resolution plan.

Topics: Insolvency Claim Timelines, Tax Claims in CIRP, Moratorium Interpretation