Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dr.N.Ethiraj, Chennai vs Assessee
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI BENCH 'C'
BEFORE SHRI PRADEEP PARIKH, VICE-PRESIDENT
AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A.No.34/Mds/2010
(in I.T(SS).A. No. 15/Mds/2010)
Block Period : 1989-90 to 1999-2000
Dr. N.Ethiraj The Asst. Commissioner
36 & 37, Jawahar Main Road Vs. of Income-tax
NRT Nagar Circle-I
Theni - 625 523 Madurai.
PAN - AABPE 1610 M
(Applicant) (Respondent)
Applicant by : Ms. Rupa J. Tharayil
Respondent by : Shri Shaji P. Jacob
ORDER
PER PRADEEP PARIKH, V.P. By this application, the assessee seeks a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs.29,00,505/- being penalty levied under sec.158BFA(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) for the block period 1989-90 to 1999-2000 (upto 26.10.1999).
2. The assessee is a doctor by profession working in a Government Hospital. He has his consulting room at Chandrasekar Nursing Home at Theni and his in-patients are accommodated in the adjacent buildings. Search under sec.132 was conducted at his residential premises on 26.10.1999 and survey was conducted under sec.133A at his consulting room in the above mentioned nursing home. In response to notice under sec.158BC, he returned an undisclosed income of Rs.1,86,320/-. In the block 2 SA 34/10 assessment, the total undisclosed income was determined at Rs.29,94,660/-. The CIT(A) reduced the undisclosed income to Rs.5,58,304/-. The department preferred an appeal before the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No.123/Mds/03. By the Tribunal order dated 18.10.2007 read with the order dated 4.7.2008 in the Misc. Application filed by the department, the undisclosed income came to be quantified at Rs.17,97,712/-. Penalty proceedings under sec. 158BFA(2) were initiated. The Assessing Officer considered the various additions sustained by the Tribunal and after considering the submissions of the assessee levied maximum penalty i.e. Rs.29,00,505/-.
3. The main contention of the ld. counsel was that the penalty order is barred by limitation and hence, there is a prima facie case in the assessee's favour. Even on merit, it was contended that the assessee has a good chance of getting the penalty deleted as the impugned order suffers from non-application of mind. The ld. D.R. objected to the grant of any stay.
4. We have heard the parties. At this juncture, we are not expected to express any opinion on the merits of the issues involved. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are inclined to grant a stay on the recovery proceedings but not without a condition. The assessee is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- on or before 31.7.2010. The appeal is already posted for hearing on 2.9.2010. If the assessee seeks adjournment on that day, the stay shall stand vacated automatically unless otherwise directed by the Bench. The assessee is also required to 3 SA 34/10 furnish the proof of payment of the above sum of Rs.50,000/- before the date of hearing.
5. In the result, the application of the assessee is allowed in the terms expressed above.
The order was pronounced in the court on 9.7.2010.
Sd/- Sd/-
(GEORGE MATHAN) (PRADEEP PARIKH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT
Chennai,
Dated the 9th July, 2010
mpo*
Copy to : Appellant/Respondent/CIT/CIT(A)/DR