Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., New Delhi vs Dcit, New Delhi on 11 February, 2022
Author: G.S. Pannu
Bench: G.S. Pannu
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: 'I-1' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HON'BLE PRESIDENT
AND
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A. No.35/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.961/Del/2015)
Assessment Year: 2010-11
With
S.A. No.36/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.287/Del/2016)
Assessment Year: 2011-12
With
S.A. No.37/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.901/Del/2017)
Assessment Year: 2012-13
With
S.A. No.38/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.6949/Del/2017)
Assessment Year: 2013-14
With
S.A. No.39/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.8009/Del/2018)
Assessment Year: 2014-15
With
S.A. No.40/Del/2022
(Arising out of ITA No.8968/Del/2019)
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., Vs. ACIT,
Plot No.-1, Nelson Mandela Circle- 16(1),
Road, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi
New Delhi
PAN :AAACM0829Q
(Applicant) (Respondent)
2
S.A. Nos. 35 to 40/Del/2022
(M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.)
Applicant by Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Advocate,
Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate
Sh. Deepesh Jain, Advocate
Respondent by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 11.02.2022
Date of pronouncement 11.02.2022
ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JM:
Captioned applications have been filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay on realization of outstanding demand pertaining to assessment years 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16.
2. We have heard Shri Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the assessee and Shri Umesh Takyar, learned Departmental Representative.
3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the assessee has submitted before us that there is change in the outstanding demand position for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 due to orders passed under Section 154 of the Act by the Assessing Officer, wherein, additional demands have been raised. He submitted, the additional demand raised was as a result of withdrawal of indexation benefit given earlier to the assessee by 3 S.A. Nos. 35 to 40/Del/2022 (M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) treating the income from sale of shares/mutual funds as income under the head 'income from capital gain'. Whereas, subsequently, it was treated as business income. He submitted, another reason for creation of additional demand is because of alleged incorrect set off of MAT credit. He submitted, the additional demand is not as a result of any new additions/disallowances, but the enhancement in the demand is merely on account of re-computation of the demand in respect of additions/disallowances already made in the assessment order. Thus, he submitted, the condition on which the stay was granted earlier is not affected due to the additional demand raised by the Assessing Officer.
4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the materials on record. Undisputedly, upon considering the prima facie case and balance of convenience, the Tribunal had earlier granted stay of recovery on the outstanding demand to the assessee in all the assessment years under dispute which were extended from time to time. The last extension of stay was granted by the Tribunal on 13.08.2021, while disposing of all the stay applications through a consolidated order. While doing so, 4 S.A. Nos. 35 to 40/Del/2022 (M/s. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.) the Tribunal was conscious of the fact that the delay in disposal of the corresponding appeals was not attributable to the assessee.
5. Nothing has been brought to our notice by the Revenue to demonstrate that the material facts, based on which stay was granted earlier to the assessee and extended from time to time, have changed, in the meanwhile. We are also convinced that the delay in disposal of the corresponding appeals cannot be attributed to the assessee. We have further noticed, now the appeals are fixed for hearing on 23.02.2022. In view of the aforesaid, we are inclined to extend the stay granted earlier for a further period of six months from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals, whichever is earlier.
7. In the result, the stay applications are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th February, 2022 Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU) (SAKTIJIT DEY)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 11th February, 2022.
RK/-
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi