Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Strides Pharma Science Ltd ( Earlier ... vs Asst Cit Cir 10(3), Mumbai on 16 July, 2021
S.A.Nos.72 &73/Mum/2021 (Arising out of ITA No 124/Mum/2013 and 2877/Mum/2014) 1
Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(3)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A. No. 72 /MUM/2021
[Arising out of ITA No. 124/Mum/2013(A.Y: 2008-09)]
S.A. No. 73 /MUM/2021
[Arising out of ITA No.2877/Mum/2014(A.Y: 2009-10)]
Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
(Earlier known as 'Strides Shasun Ltd'/Strides Arcolab Ltd.')
Income Tax, Circle -10(3)
201, Devarata Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai - 400 703 Mumbai
PAN No: AADCS8104P
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Applicant by : Shri Percy Pardiwala, A.R
Respondent by : Shri Manpreet Singh Duggle, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 16.07.2021
Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2021
ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:
The present applications have been filed by the assessee applicant seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand.
2. As is discernible from the records, the Tribunal vide its order passed in S.A. No. 228 & 229/Mum/2020 (arising out of ITA No.124/Mum/2013 and ITA No.2877/Mum/2014) for A.Y 2008-09 and A.Y 2009-10, dated 21.12.2020 had granted stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for A.Y. 2008-09 of Rs.37,33,99,620/- (including interest component of Rs.18,40,43,006) and for A.Y. 2009-10 of Rs.67,46,08,881/- (including interest of Rs.25,08,64,524/-). The Tribunal while allowing the assessee's application seeking stay on the recovery S.A.Nos.72 &73/Mum/2021 (Arising out of ITA No 124/Mum/2013 and 2877/Mum/2014) 2 Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(3) of the outstanding demand, had observed, that the assessee had already paid an amount of more than 90% of its outstanding demand for both the aforementioned years viz. A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 and prima facie has a good case on merits. In order to fortify his aforesaid claim, the assessee in the course of the aforesaid proceedings had drawn the attention of the Tribunal to the orders which were passed in its own case for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2009-10 involving identical issue which had been decided in its favour. After deliberating at length, the Tribunal in the totality of the facts, holding a conviction that the balance of convenience qua granting of stay on the collection of the outstanding demand was in favour of the assessee had granted stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of its order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever was earlier. Also, the Tribunal while allowing the assessee's application for stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand had directed the registry to post the appeals for hearing on 04.01.2021 as first on board (FOB).
3. As can be gathered from the present application filed by the assessee applicant, we find, that pursuant to the grant of stay by the Tribunal vide its consolidated order dated 21.12.2020, though the appeal of the assessee had came up for virtual hearing on 04.01.2021, but the same was adjourned by the bench for paucity of time to 05.01.2021. As stated by the assessee applicant, thereafter, the matter had been adjourned on the various dates, as under:
Date Particulars 05.01.2021 The virtual hearing of the appeal was adjourned by the bench to 12.01.2021 since the Deparmental Representative was facing network connectivity issue. 12.01.2021 The hearing of the appeal was adjourned by the bench to 23.03.2021 for want of time. 23.03.2021 The hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 07.04.2021 for physical hearing. 07.04.2021 The appeal was adjourned to 15.06.2021, for the reason, that Mumbai bench, 'J' did not function.
15.06.2021 The hearing of the appeal was adjourned to 11.08.2021 for want of time.
In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the hearing of the appeal had been adjourned on the various occasions for no fault S.A.Nos.72 &73/Mum/2021 (Arising out of ITA No 124/Mum/2013 and 2877/Mum/2014) 3 Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(3) on the part of the assessee. It was further submitted by the ld. A.R that majority of the issues involved in the present appeals are covered in the assessee's favour, vide the orders passed by the Tribunal in its own case for A.Y. 2007-08 and A.Y. 2014-15, dated 08.06.2018 and 07.02.2020. Our attention was drawn by the ld. A.R to the copies of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the aforementioned appeals. It was, thus, submitted by the ld. A.R that as the delay in disposal of the appeals had occasioned for no fault attributable to the assessee, therefore, in all fairness the stay granted by the Tribunal on the recovery of the outstanding demand merits to be extended till the said appeals are disposed off.
4. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') did not controvert the aforesaid contentions raised by the ld. Senior Counsel for the assessee.
5. We have heard the ld. Authorized Representatives for both the parties and perused the material available on record. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the Tribunal vide its earlier order dated 21.12.2020 had granted stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of its order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever was earlier. As observed by us hereinabove, the Tribunal while granting stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand to the assessee had directed the registry to post the appeals for hearing on 04.01.2021 as first on board (FOB). However, we find, that as pointed out by the ld. Senior Counsel, and rightly so, the hearing of the appeals was on various occasions adjourned from time to time, for reasons, which by no means can be attributed to the assessee. On a specific query by the bench, it was informed by the ld. A.R that the captioned appeals are now fixed for hearing on 11.08.2021. Accordingly, in the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matrix, we are of the considered view that the present application filed by the assessee seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding S.A.Nos.72 &73/Mum/2021 (Arising out of ITA No 124/Mum/2013 and 2877/Mum/2014) 4 Strides Pharma Science Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 10(3) demand for the aforementioned years viz. A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 merits acceptance. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations herein allow the respective applications filed by the assessee applicant and extend the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for both of the aforementioned years, viz. A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009-10 for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals, which ever is earlier.
6. Resultantly, the applications filed by the assessee seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for A.Y. 2008-09 and A.Y. 2009- 10 are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16.07.2021
Sd/- Sd/-
(Shamim Yahya) (Ravish Sood)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai;
Dated: 16/07/2021
**PS: Rohit
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Sr. Private Secretary)