Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Multi Screen Media P.Ltd, Mumbai vs Asst Cit Cen Cir 3(2), Mumbai on 7 October, 2019
P a g e |1
ITA No.397/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11
Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-3(2)
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENTAND
SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A.No. 397/MUM/2019
[Arising out of ITA 1256/Mum/2015 (A.Y: 2010-11)]
Sony Pictures Networks India Private Limited Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
(Formerly known as Multi Screen Media Private Limited)
Income-tax, Central Circle-3(2)
Interface, 4th Floor, Building No. 7,
Aayakar Bhavan,
Off Malad Link Road, Malad (W),
Mumbai 400 064 Maharshi Karve Road, Churchgate,
Mumbai - 400020
PAN No: AABCS1728D
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Applicant by : Shri Nishant Thakkar, A.R
Revenue by : Shri Michael Jerald, D.R.
Date of Hearing : 04.10.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 07.10.2019
ORDER
PER RAVISH SOOD (JM):
The present application has been filed by the assessee on 01.10.2019 seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs.71,12,41,378/- for A.Y. 2010-11.
2. As is discernible from the records, the Tribunal vide its order dated 18.03.2016, had initially granted stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs.112,29,02,350/- of the assessee, with a direction to the revenue to adjust a refund of Rs.41,16,60,980/- that was due to the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08. Accordingly, as stated by the assessee in its stay application, an amount to the tune 36% of the total outstanding demand had already been recovered by the revenue. As the appeal could not be disposed off, therefore, the Tribunal from time to time had thereafter extended stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand. As per the records, the Tribunal vide its order dated 04.04.2019, had on the last occasion extended the stay on the P a g e |2 ITA No.397/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-3(2) recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs.71,12,41,378/- for a period of 6 moths or till the date of order of the Tribunal, whichever was earlier.
3. It was submitted by the ld. Authorized Representative (for short 'A.R') for the assessee that no default or lapses could be attributed to the assessee, which had led to the delay in disposal of the present appeal. Apart there from, it was submitted by the ld. A.R that the captioned appeal of the assessee stands fixed for hearing on 02.12.2019. It was vehemently submitted by the ld. A.R, that as a substantial amount towards outstanding demand had already been deposited by the assessee, and also no lapses or laches could be attributed to the assessee which had led to the delay in the disposal of the present appeal, therefore, in all fairness the extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand may be granted till the disposal of the present appeal.
4. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'D.R') objected to the application filed by the assessee seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand.
5. We have heard the authorised representatives for both the parties and perused the application filed by the assessee, and also the material available on record. Admittedly, pursuant to the directions of the Tribunal, vide its order dated 18.03.2016 an outstanding refund of Rs.41,16,60,980/- that was due to the assessee for A.Y. 2007-08 was partly adjusted against the then outstanding demand (including interest) of Rs.1,12,29,02,350/-. Resultantly, the balance outstanding demand (including interest) for the year under consideration was scaled down to an amount of Rs.71,12,41,378/-. In our considered view, a substantial amount had already been recovered by the revenue as against its original outstanding demand for the year under consideration. Also, we find that the delay in the disposal of the present appeal cannot be attributed to any default or lapse on the part of the assessee. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view, that as the assessee had duly complied with the directions of the Tribunal and a substantial part of the total demand had already been deposited in the government exchequer, therefore, the application filed by the assessee seeking extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand merits acceptance. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we may herein observe, that the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of P a g e |3 ITA No.397/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-3(2) CIT Vs. Tata Tele Services (Maharashtra) Ltd., while disposing off the Writ Petition (Lodg) No.3437 of 2015, had vide its order dated 16.12.2015, held that if the delay in disposing off the appeal is not attributable to the assessee, then the stay can be extended beyond the prescribed time limit provided under the statute. At this stage, we may herein observe, that we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the objection of the ld. D.R to the grant of extension of the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of the assessee. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, in the fitness of things the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand is extended for a further period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
6. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 07.10.2019
Sd/- Sd/-
(Pramod Kumar) (Ravish Sood)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
भुंफई Mumbai; ददन ुंक 07.10.2019
PS. Rohit
आदे श की प्रतिलऱपि अग्रेपिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अऩीर थी / The Appellant
2. प्रत्मथी / The Respondent.
3. आमकय आमक्त(अऩीर) / The CIT(A)-
4. आमकय आमक्त / CIT
5. विब गीम प्रतततनधध, आमकय अऩीरीम अधधकयण, भुंफई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. ग र्ड प ईर / Guard file.
सत्म वऩत प्रतत //True Copy// आदे शानुसार/ BY ORDER, उि/सहायक िंजीकार (Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अिीऱीय अधिकरण, भुंफई / ITAT, Mumbai P a g e |4 ITA No.397/Mum/2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Sony Pictures Networks India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax-3(2)