Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
H S I Automotives Private Limited, ... vs Dcit Corporate Circle 2(2), Chennai on 4 February, 2022
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, 'डी' ायपीठ, चे ई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'D' BENCH: CHENNAI
माननीय ी महावीर िसं ह, उपा , एवं
माननीय ी जी. मं जूनाथा, ले खा सद के सम
BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND
HON'BLE SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Petition Nos.5, 6 & 7/Chny/2022
(in ITA No.867/Chny/2016,
ITA No.276/Chny/2017 & ITA No.3011/Chny/2017)
िनधारण वष /Assessment Years: 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
M/s.HSI Automotives Pvt. Ltd., v. The Dy. Commissioner of
Survey No.73, A Block, #100, Income Tax,
Thandalam Post, Mevalurkuppam, Corporate Circle-2(2),
Sriperumbudur Taluk, Chennai-34.
Kancheepuram-602 105.
[PAN: AAACH 2804 E]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( थ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ की ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.B.Ramana Kumar, Adv.
थ की ओर से /Respondent by : Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan,
Addl.CIT
सु नवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.02.2022
घोषणा की तारीख/Dt. of Pronouncement : 04.02.2022
आदे श / O R D E R
PER G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee has filed present Stay Applications seeking stay for outstanding demand of tax and interest of Rs.52,630/-, Rs.83,17,600/- & Rs.10,82,57,550/- for the AYs 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14 respectively.
2. The Ld.AR for the assessee referring to Stay Applications filed by the assessee submitted that common issue involved in all three years relates to transfer pricing adjustment made by the AO towards Arm's Length Price (in short "ALP") of the international transaction entered into by the assessee with SP Nos.5-7/Chny/2022 :- 2 -:
its Associated Enterprises (in short "AE") are prima facie covered by the decisions of various Tribunals and the High Courts and further, the assessee is having a balance of convenience in its favour. The AR, further, submitted that the AO has attached bank accounts of the assessee for recovering outstanding demand and has also recovered amount which resulted in financial hardships. He, further, submitted that the assessee has paid 100% of tax and interest demanded for the AY 2011-12, whereas for the AY 2012-13, the assessee has paid more than 20% of the disputed demand. Similarly, the assessee has paid 31% of the disputed tax and interest demanded for the AY 2013-14. Therefore, considering the fact that the issues are prima facie in favour of the assessee and also the assessee has deposited more than 20% of the disputed demand for all the three years, stay will be granted for balance outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or till such time the appeals filed by the assessee are disposed off by the Tribunal.
3. The Ld.DR, on the other hand, fairly agreed that the AO has confirmed that the assessee has paid 20% disputed demand for all three years. However, he further argued that the assessee has failed to make out financial hardships to remit the balance outstanding demand and thus, before granting stay, the assessee may be asked to pay further amount towards disputed demand for all three years.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the Stay Applications filed by the assessee for all three AYs. The AO has made additions towards transfer pricing adjustment in respect of ALP at international transaction of the assessee with its AE. The assessee contended that additions made by the AO towards SP Nos.5-7/Chny/2022 :- 3 -:
TP adjustment to international transaction are prima facie covered by the decisions of various Tribunals and the High Courts. We find that the AO has made certain adjustments including TP adjustment towards international transaction and other corporate tax issues including disallowance u/s.36(1)(va) r.w.s.2(24)(x), disallowance u/s.40(a)(i) for non-deduction of TDS under respective provisions of the Act and also disallowance u/s.14A r.w.r.8D of Income Tax Rules, 1962. It appears that the issues involved in the present appeals are prima facie covered by the decisions of various Tribunals and the High Courts. However, without going into the merits of the case, whether the issues are covered or not, by considering the fact that the assessee has complied with statutory requirement of payment of minimum 20% of disputed tax for all the years, we deem it appropriate to grant stay for balance outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or till disposal of appeals filed by the assessee, whichever is earlier. Hence, we stayed the balance outstanding demand for the AYs 2011-12 to 2013-14 for a period of 180 days or till disposal of appeals filed by the assessee, whichever is earlier.
5. In the result, Stay Applications filed by the assessee for the AYs 2011- 12 to 2013-14 are disposed off in terms of observations made herein above.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of February, 2022, in Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(महावीर िसं ह) (जी. मं जूनाथा)
(MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA)
उपा /VICE PRESIDENT ले खा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SP Nos.5-7/Chny/2022
:- 4 -:
चे ई/Chennai,
िदनां क/Dated: 04th February, 2022.
TLN, Sr.PS
आदे श की ितिलिप अ 'े िषत/Copy to:
1. अ पीलाथ /Appellant 4. आयकर आयु (/CIT
2. थ /Respondent 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR
3. आयकर आयु ( (अ पील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड फाईल/GF