Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Behat Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs Ito Ward-4(3), New Delhi on 4 November, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'A' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SH.R.K PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A.No.988/Del/2019
(In ITA No.8066/Del/2019)
(ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11)
Behat Holdings Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer
14, 4380/4B, Murari Lal Ward - 4 (3)
Street, Ansari Road, New Delhi
Daryaganj, Central Delhi,
New Delhi
PAN No.AADCB7691L
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, Advocate
Sh. Rohit Jain, Advocate
Respondent by Sh. Sanjog Kapoor, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 04.11.2019
Date of Pronouncement 04.11.2019
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM
The assessee through this stay application requests the Tribunal to stay the realization of outstanding demand of Rs.3,74,21,200/-for the A. Y. 2010-11.
2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to the contents of the stay application submitted that the assessee is a company engaged in providing financial services. The AO after initiating proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act issued notice u/s. 148 and thereafter completed the assessment u/s. 147/143 (3) of the Act on 30.12.2017 determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.7,13,04,084/-. While doing so he made addition of Rs. 7 crores u/s. 68 of the IT Act on account of share capital receipt and addition of Rs. 14 lacs on account of alleged undisclosed brokerage/ commission expenditure to obtain the share capital. The addition was sustained by the CIT(A). He submitted that out of the total demand of Rs.4,67,79,497/-the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs. 93,55,299/- on 19.02.2018 which is 20% of the total outstanding tax demand. While explaining the prima facie case in favour of the assessee the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the reassessment proceedings initiated u/s. 147 of the Act are without jurisdiction, illegal and bad in law since the reasons recorded do not constitute reasonable belief of escapement of income and were based on mere suspicion, without application of mind and in absence of tangible material. Further the reasons recorded were not supplied to the assessee alongwith notice u/s. 148 nor within the time limit of 6 years prescribed u/s. 149 of the IT Act. The reassessment is also bad in law since the notice u/s. 148 was issued before obtaining prior approval of the PCIT which is apparent from the copy of letter communicating sanction u/s. 151 according to which the same was received by the AO on 28.03.2017 whereas the notice was issued on 27.03.2017. Further the sanction was given by the PCIT in a mechanical manner and, therefore, is invalid, in view of the series of decisions rendered by the jurisdictional High Court and the Page | 2 coordinate benches of the Tribunal. He accordingly submitted that the assessee has a strong prima facie case in its favour.
3. So far as the financial hardship of the assessee is concerned the Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed the copy of the latest provisional balance sheet as on 31.10.2019 alongwith the copy of the up to date bank statements and submitted that the assessee does not have any sufficient balance in the bank or cash in hand and is not in a position to pay such huge outstanding demand. He accordingly submitted that the assessee should be granted stay on the realization of the outstanding demand. He also requested for an out of turn hearing of the appeal.
4. The Ld. DR on the other hand strongly opposed the stay application filed by the assessee and submitted that the assessee does not have a case on merit. He further submitted that the assessee has huge investments in group companies and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any financial hardship to the assessee. He accordingly submitted that the assessee should be directed to pay the entire outstanding demand forthwith.
5. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and after perusal of the bank statements alongwith provisional balance sheet of the assessee as on 31.10.2019 we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting blanket stay on realization of the outstanding demand. We, therefore, direct the assessee to pay Rs.60 lacs in Page | 3 two installments of Rs. 30 lacs each. The first installment shall be paid on or before 30.11.2019 and the second installment be paid on or before 31.12.2019. The balance amount is stayed for a period of 6 months from today or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The request of the assessee for out of turn hearing is also accepted and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 06.01.2020 which was announced in the open court. It was further announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent to which both the parties agreed. In the mean time the assessee is directed not to dispose of any of its assets other than for making the payments towards the installments as directed above. It was further made clear that the assessee shall not seek any adjournment under any pretext. In case the assessee seeks adjournment on the next date of hearing the stay granted shall be vacated automatically. The stay application filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
6. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 04.11.2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA)
JUDICIAL MEMMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
*neha*
Date:- 04.11.2019
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent`
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Page | 4
ITAT NEW DELHI
Date of dictation 04.11.2019
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 04.11.2019
dictating Member
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 04.11.2019
Other member
Date on which the approved draft comes to the 04.11.2019
Sr.PS/PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before the 04.11.2019
Dictating Member for Pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. 04.11.2019
PS/ PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the 04.11.2019
website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
The date on which file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order Date of dispatch of the Order Page | 5