Substantial questions of law remain unanswered while the Revenue’s claims are pending before the Supreme Court.

The Revenue filed two appeals concerning assessment year 2007–08: TCA No. 1 of 2014 challenged the Tribunal’s order on the merits, and TCA No. 908 of 2015 challenged its order concerning penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

The parties informed the Court that its order dated 22 September 2026 in other appeals involving the assessee had a bearing on these matters.

That order recounted the insolvency proceedings, the Supreme Court’s orders permitting withdrawal of the CIRP and addressing objections by the Income Tax Department, and the continuing Supreme Court proceedings concerning the Department’s claim.

The Court concluded that the Department’s interests were addressed and that it should establish its claim in the proceedings pending before the Supreme Court.

Whether the Court should determine the questions raised in the Revenue’s appeals concerning the Tribunal’s merits and penalty orders, in light of the related proceedings and orders of the Supreme Court.

Whether the appeals should be disposed of without answering those questions, while preserving liberty to revive them if necessary.

The Court relied on its order dated 22 September 2026 in the related appeals and the Supreme Court’s orders concerning the assessee’s insolvency proceedings and settlement arrangement.

The related order referred to Sections 12A, 31 and 33 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, and Section 281 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in considering the settlement, the Department’s objections and the protection of Revenue’s interests.

It also cited Ghanashyam Mishra & Sons (P) Ltd. v. Edelweiss Asset Reconstruction Co. Ltd. and Embassy Property Developments (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka in discussing the effect of judicially sanctioned insolvency processes on statutory authorities.

The present judgment lays down no substantive tax-law rule; it applies the procedural course adopted in the related appeals where the Department’s claim remained for consideration in proceedings before the Supreme Court.

The Court noted that the appeals arose from separate Tribunal orders on the merits and penalty, but considered the subsequent insolvency-related developments and the Supreme Court proceedings material to their disposition.

Following its conclusion in the related appeals that the Department’s interests were addressed and its claim should be established before the Supreme Court, the Court held that it was not called upon to answer the questions raised in these appeals.

At the parties’ joint request, it granted the Department liberty to revive the appeals if necessary. No costs were ordered.