Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Dcit Int. Taxation, Circle 2(2)(1), New ... vs Lg Electronics Inc. , Korea on 31 October, 2022
Author: G.S. Pannu
Bench: G.S. Pannu
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
DELHI BENCH: 'I' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, PRESIDENT AND
SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Miscellaneous Application Nos. 276 & 277/Del/2022
(In SA Nos.128 & 129/Del/2022)
Assessment Years: 2015-16 & 2016-17
DCIT, Vs. M/s. LG Electronics Inc., Korea,
International Taxation, C/o. S/Sh. Amit Srivastava &
Circle 2(2)(1) Ankul Goyal, Adv.
New Delhi. AZB & Partners, A-8, Sec.4,
Noida
PAN :AAACL7929E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Miscellaneous Application No. 278/Del/2022
(In SA No.130/Del/2022)
Assessment Year: 2017-18
ACIT, Vs. M/s. LG Electronics Inc., Korea,
International Taxation, C/o. S/Sh. Amit Srivastava &
Circle 2(2)(1) Ankul Goyal, Adv.
New Delhi. AZB & Partners, A-8, Sec.4,
Noida
PAN :AAACL7929E
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by S/Sh. Deepak Chopra & Ankul Goel,
Advs.
Respondent by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr. DR
2
M.A.Nos.276 to 278/Del/2022
Date of hearing 21.10.2022
Date of pronouncement 31.10.2022
ORDER
PER SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
Captioned applications have been filed by the Revenue seeking recall/rectification of order dated 20.05.2022 passed in SA Nos.128 to 130/Del/2022.
2. We have heard Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, learned Departmental Representative and Shri Deepak Chopra, learned counsel appearing for the assessee.
3. It is the case of the Revenue that as per section 254(2A) of the Act, the Tribunal can grant stay on recovery of demand only if the assessee pays 20% of the demand or furnishes a security of equal amount. It is submitted, while granting stay, the Tribunal has not followed the aforesaid statutory mandate. Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
4. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material available on record.
3
M.A.Nos.276 to 278/Del/2022
5. A reading of the miscellaneous applications would reveal that the Revenue has filed these applications seeking rectification/recall of an order of extension of stay and not the order wherein stay on recovery of demand was initially granted to the assessee. Therefore, the present applications filed by the Revenue, per se, are not maintainable, as, the order impugned in the miscellaneous applications does not give rise to any fresh cause of action to the Revenue. In any case of the matter, while granting stay in the order passed initially, the Tribunal has properly applied its mind to all aspects, including, the statutory provisions and decided in a particular manner. In other words, after considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience and various other factors, the Tribunal had taken a conscious view that stay on recovery of outstanding demand should be given. If the Revenue was aggrieved with the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal, it should have contested that order before the appropriate court/forum. The Revenue having failed to take such steps at that stage, cannot now put the clock back by filing the present applications for rectification of an order, wherein, stay granted earlier was merely extended. It is further relevant to observe, though, while granting stay the Tribunal 4 M.A.Nos.276 to 278/Del/2022 had directed for expeditious hearing and disposal of the appeals, however, facts on record reveal that the appeals are still pending due to unpreparedness of the Revenue in arguing the appeals, for whatever may be the reason.
6. In aforesaid view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the present applications filed by the Revenue. Accordingly, we dismiss them.
8. In the result, miscellaneous applications are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31st October, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S. PANNU ) (SAKTIJIT DEY)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 31st October, 2022.
Mohan Lal
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi