Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, ... vs Asst.Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 27 October, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "B" : HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTING MEMBER
Stay Application Nos. 127 to 131/Hyd/2017
(Arising out of ITA Nos. 326 to 330/Hyd/2017)
Assessment Years : 2009-10 to 2013-14
Kakatiya Urban Asst. Commissioner of
Development Authority, Vs. Income-tax, Circle - 1,
Warangal Warangal.
PAN - AAJK1465B
(Applicant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri S. Rama Rao
For Revenue : Shri L. Ramji Rao
Date of Hearing : 27-10-2017
Date of Pronouncement : 27-10-2017
ORDER
PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. :
These Stay Applications are filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay granted by this Tribunal in SA Nos. 33 to 37/H/2017 vide its order dated 30/03/2017 wherein the coordinate bench has observed as under:
"4. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the record. On a conspectus of the matter, we are of the view that it is a fit case for granting conditional stay. Since all the appeals are already posted for hearing on 13.06.2017, we hereby direct the assessee to pay a sum of Rs.8 crores, for all the years under consideration, on or before 31st March, 2017 and subject to payment thereon the balance outstanding demand is stayed. Assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date fixed for hearing.
5. Learned counsel for the Assessee submitted that the order of the Commissioner (Exemptions) having been served upon the assessee on 28.03.2017 it has to file appeals against that order and the same has to be clubbed along with the :- 2 -:
SA. Nos. 127 to 131/Hyd/2017 Kakatiya Urban Development Authority present appeals and atleast on account of that factor it may take some time, as Act stipulates two months time to flle appeals and to prosecute the matters.
6. No doubt, the Law permits time to file appeals within 02 months but we only advise the assessee to file appeals at the earliest so that the same can be clubbed along with the present appeals and can be taken-up together. However, if there are genuine reasons for seeking adjournment, the Bench can take a decision to extend the stay already granted. With these observations, the stay applications filed by assessee are treated as partly allowed.
2. Referring to the above factual back ground, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the stay was granted till 27/09/2017, therefore, the ld. Counsel submitted that the assessee is not in a position to pay the outstanding demand for want of funds and prayed the Bench to grant stay of recovery of tax for a period of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal. Moreover, the assessee has a prima-facie case in its hand and therefore, assessee has balance of convenience in its favour.
3. The ld. DR has not objected to the submissions made by the ld. Counsel.
4. Having heard both the parties and perused the material on record and taking note of the fact that the issue is still pending before the Tribunal and since non-disposal of the appeals is not due to any reason attributable to the assessee, we are inclined to grant stay of the recovery of the outstanding demand in the AY under consideration for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the corresponding appeals by the Bench, whichever is earlier.
:- 3 -:
SA. Nos. 127 to 131/Hyd/2017 Kakatiya Urban Development Authority
5. In the result, Stay Applications of assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th October, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, Dated 27th October, 2017 kv Copy to :
1. Kakatiya Urban Development Authority, H.No. 6-1-240, KUDA Complex, Behind Ashoka Hotel, Hanamkonda, Warangal - 506 001
2. ACIT, Circle - 1, Warangal.
3. CIT(Appeals) - 3, Hyderabad.
4. Pr. CIT -3, Hyderabad
5. CIT (Exemptions), Hyd.
5. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File.