### CONTRADICTORY PLEADINGS BEFORE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OPERATE AS RELEVANT GROUNDS FOR DISPUTING DEBT UNDER THE INSOLVENCY AND BANKRUPTCY CODE.

The Appellant (Lender) provided loans to the Respondent (Company) in 2010.

Following defaults and dishonored checks, a Summary Suit [CS (OS) 66/2016] was filed in the Delhi High Court, resulting in a decree dated 11.01.2018 for ₹4,38,00,617/- with 24% interest.

The Lender initiated Section 7 IBC proceedings, which were initially rejected by the NCLT but later revived by the NCLAT.

The Company appealed to the Supreme Court, which directed the NCLAT to examine the "existence of debt" due to a "serious contest" regarding calculations.

The Company alleges that the Lender suppressed prior payments and provided contradictory statements to Income Tax authorities, claiming the debt was significantly lower (₹96,48,480/-) than decreed.

1. Whether a legally enforceable debt exists in the amount claimed by the Lender (₹12.51 Crores) in light of conflicting statements made before Income Tax authorities and pending recalculation applications in the High Court?

The Tribunal considered Section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 regarding the initiation of corporate insolvency by a financial creditor.

It applied Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding the finality of summary decrees.

and Section 151 of the CPC concerning the court’s inherent powers to prevent abuse of process—specifically regarding the Company's pending application (IA No. 17634/2022) in the Delhi High Court to re-examine the decretal amount based on alleged suppression of facts.

The "Real Income" principle of Tax Law was noted in relation to the Lender’s admissions before the ITAT.

The Tribunal analyzed the discrepancy between the Lender’s claim in the Summary Suit and his pleadings before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT).

It noted that in ITA No. 555/KOL/2020, the Lender explicitly stated the balance due from the Company as of 31.03.2012 was only ₹96,48,480/-, which directly contradicts the ₹4.38 Crore principal claimed in the civil suit.

The Tribunal observed that the Delhi High Court, under Section 151 CPC, is currently seized of an application regarding these discrepancies and the Lender's alleged failure to reflect TDS-backed interest payments.

While the 2018 decree is technically final, the NCLAT found that the Lender's annual addition of ₹1.05 Crores in interest ignored documented adjustments and payments, such as the ₹3.53 Crores acknowledged in a 2013 settlement.

Consequently, the "existence of debt" in the specific quantum claimed is cast into doubt by the Lender’s own contradictory judicial admissions.

It held that the Lender’s calculation of ₹12,51,18,074/- cannot be accepted at face value as it disregards payments made and conflicting records before the ITAT.

The Tribunal directed that this order be placed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assist in determining if the dispute can be settled, rather than granting the specific quantification reliefs sought by the Appellant.