ORDER : 1. We have heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on behalf of the Revenue and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents, who is on ceveat. 2. We have gone through the judgment and order passed by the National Company Law Tribunal (NCLT) as well as the judgment and order passed by the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT). Apart from the fact that there is huge delay of 518 days in preferring the appeals, we have also considered the case on merits. 3. The main grievance on the part of the Revenue is that the impugned orders and/or sanction of the Scheme may come in the way of the Department while framing the assessment and to that extent, interest of the Revenue will be affected. 4. However, it is required to be noted that in the order passed by the NCLT, the NCLT has already clarified that the Income Tax Department will be free to examine the aspect of any tax payable as a result of the sanction of the Scheme and in case it is found that the Scheme of arrangement ultimately results in tax avoidance or is not in accordance with the de-merger provisions of the Income Tax Act, then the Income Tax Department will be at liberty to initiate appropriate course of action as per law. It is further clarified by the NCLT that any sanction to the scheme of arrangement under Sections 230- 232 of the Income Tax Act,2013 shall not adversely affect the rights of the Income Tax Department or any past, present or future proceedings and the same has been reiterated by NCLAT in the impugned judgment and order. 5. In that view of the above, the apprehension on the part of the Revenue is not well founded. 6. The NCLT as well as the NCLAT have already clarified and protected the rights of the Income Tax Department, if any. 7. In view of the above, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and orders passed by the NCLAT as well as the NCLT. 8. With above observations, the Appeals stand dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits.