NCLT Chandigarh Rejects Department's ₹975.56 Cr Claim Filed 1305 Days Late In Gupta Builders CIRP

The Chandigarh National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) on 10 July held that the Income Tax Department cannot seek condonation of an extraordinary delay to introduce claims after approval of a Resolution Plan, as such belated claims would disturb the finality of the Corporate Insolvency Resolution Process (CIRP).

A Bench comprising Judicial Member Khetrabasi Biswal and Technical Member Shishir Agarwal dismissed the application filed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax seeking condonation of a 1305-day delay in filing claims worth Rs. 975.56 crore against Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. It observed:

“Entertaining claims after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors would result in reopening settled positions and would have the effect of unsettling the commercial decisions already taken by the stakeholders of the Corporate Debtor.”

The CIRP against Gupta Builders and Promoters Pvt. Ltd. commenced on 31 May 2022, following which Mukesh Gupta was appointed as the Interim Resolution Professional and later confirmed as the Resolution Professional. The public announcement inviting claims was issued on 2 June 2022, and the last date for submission of claims was fixed as 14 June 2022.

The Committee of Creditors (CoC) approved the Resolution Plan on 25 April 2023 with a 93.48% voting share. However, the Income Tax Department filed its claim only on 15 October 2025 after discovering the CIRP through a manual search. The Resolution Professional rejected the claim on 7 November 2025, stating that it was filed beyond the prescribed timeline and after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC.

The Income Tax Department argued that the Resolution Professional failed to inform it about the commencement of CIRP or invite it to submit its claim despite statutory dues being reflected in the corporate debtor's books of accounts. It contended that the Resolution Professional failed to discharge his obligations under the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 (IBC).

The Resolution Professional opposed the application, arguing that the claim was filed nearly two years after approval of the Resolution Plan. He submitted that allowing such a claim would unsettle the commercial decisions taken by the CoC and defeat the objective of completing insolvency proceedings within a fixed timeline.

The Tribunal noted that Regulation 12 of the Insolvency Resolution Process for Corporate Persons Regulations, 2016 requires creditors to submit claims along with proof on or before the last date specified in the public announcement. It observed that timelines under the CIRP framework are essential to ensure certainty and finality in the resolution process.

It further held that the Income Tax Department filed the claim after a delay of 1305 days, much after approval of the Resolution Plan by the CoC. It observed that even if the Resolution Professional failed to individually notify the Department, such failure could not justify reopening the CIRP after approval of the Resolution Plan.

The Bench also distinguished the Supreme Court's decision in State Tax Officer v. Rainbow Papers Limited, relied upon by the Department, observing that the judgment dealt with the treatment of statutory dues as secured debts and did not concern condonation of delay in filing claims after approval of a Resolution Plan. It observed:

“While it is settled position that the role of the Resolution Professional is primarily administrative and not adjudicatory in nature, it certainly cannot be stretched to claim that the RP has to mechanically accept and collate each and every claim received. The Resolution Professional is required to examine claims in accordance with the provisions of the Code and the applicable Regulations. In the present case, the Resolution Professional declined to entertain a claim filed after approval of the Resolution Plan by the Committee of Creditors and after expiry of all prescribed timelines. Such action cannot be said to be contrary to the scheme of the Code.”

Lastly, it noted that entertaining such a belated claim would materially affect the resolution process and undermine the settled principles governing CIRP.

Accordingly, the NCLT dismissed the application seeking condonation of delay. It upheld the Resolution Professional's decision to reject the Income Tax Department's claim.

For Applicants: Senior Advocate Varun Issar and Advocate Nikita Garg