Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Johnson Matthey Chemicals India ... vs Additional Commissioner Of ... on 6 November, 2017
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण] पण
ु े यायपीठ "बी" पण
ु े म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
PUNE BENCH "B", PUNE
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND
SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM
S.A. No.106/PUN/2017
(Arising out of ITA No.630/PUN/2014)
नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2008-09
Johnson Matthey Chemicals India
Private Limited ('JMCIPL'), .......... अपीलाथ /
Plot No.6A, MIDC Industrial
Appellant
Estate, Taloja, Dist. Raigad,
Maharashtra - 410208.
PAN : AABCJ1620M.
बनाम v/s
Addl.Commissioner of Income Tax, .......... यथ /
Panvel. Respondent
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri Rajendra Agiwal
यथ क ओर से / Respondent by : Shri Mukesh Jha, JCIT.
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / घोषणा क तार ख /
Date of Hearing : 27.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 06.11.2017
आदे श / ORDER
PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM :
Through the present stay application, the assessee wants us to stay the net outstanding tax demand of Rs.1,72,31,810/- for A.Y. 2008-09.
2. Before us Ld.A.R. submitted that the total tax demand comprises of tax of Rs.3,43,27,845/- and interest Rs.1,85,05,175/- aggregating to Rs.5,28,33,560/- against which 2 assessee has already paid Rs.3,56,01,750/- and thus the net outstanding tax demand is Rs.1,72,31,810/-. He submitted that assessee had made application for stay of demand before the Prl.Commissioner of Income Tax who stayed the demand only to the extent to which the issue was covered by ITAT's earlier order and directed the assessee to pay the balance outstanding demand of Rs.1.36 crores. He pointed to the copy of the order of CIT placed at page 4 of the Appeal Memo. He further submitted that the demand is mainly on account of disallowance of depreciation of goodwill. He submitted that identical issue arose in assessee's own case in earlier year and the appeal has already been heard by the Hon'ble ITAT and the order is awaited. He further submitted that the hearing of the appeal for A.Y. 2008-09 is fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 12.12.2017 and the assessee has arguable case of merits. He therefore submitted that the assessee be granted stay of demand. Ld. D.R. on the other hand opposed the stay application and submitted that the assessee be asked to deposit further sum against the outstanding demand.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Before us, Ld.D.R. has not controverted the submissions made by Ld.A.R. Further considering the fact that assessee's appeal for the impugned year has been already been fixed for hearing on 12.12.2017, we are of the view that the assessee deserves stay of outstanding tax demand. We therefore grant stay of the outstanding disputed tax demand for a period of 3 180 days from the date of this order or till disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
4. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 6th day of November, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUSHMA CHOWLA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
या यक सद य / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
पुणे Pune; दनांक Dated : 6th November, 2017. Yamini आदे श क! " त$ल%प अ&े%षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2. यथ / The Respondent
3. CIT(A)-II, Thane.
4. CIT-II, Thane.
5. #वभागीय &त&न'ध, आयकर अपील य अ'धकरण, "बी" / DR, ITAT, "B" Pune;
6. गाड- फाईल / Guard file.
आदे शानस ु ार/ BY ORDER,स या // / TRUE COPY / / //T// True Copy // व/र0ठ &नजी स'चव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपील य अ'धकरण ,पण ु े / ITAT, Pune.