Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Value Labs Llp (Previously Known As ... vs Dcit, Circle-16(1), Hyderabad, ... on 30 March, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A & B": HYDERABAD
BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI B. RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Application Nos. 63, 64 & 65/Hyd/2017
(Arising out of ITA Nos. 405/Hyd/15, 392/Hyd/16 & 475/Hyd/17)
Assessment Years : 2010-11, 2009-10 & 2012-13
Deputy Commissioner
of Income Tax,
M/s. ValueLabs LLP Circle-8(1),
(Previously known as Value HYDERABAD
Labs) Vs.
HYDERABAD Asst. Commissioner of
[PAN: AAEFV9532G] Income Tax,
Circle-8(1),
HYDERABAD
[Applicant] [Respondent (s)]
For Assessee : Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, AR
For Revenue : Shri P. Chandra Sekhar, DR
Date of Hearing : 30-03-2017
Date of Pronouncement : 30-03-2017
ORDER
PER B. RAMAKOTAIAH, A.M. :
These three Stay Applications are made by assessee seeking the following reliefs:
a) Grant stay of recovery demand till the appeal of the applicant is heard and decided by the Hon'ble Tribunal;
SA. Nos. 63, 64 & 65/Hyd/2017 :- 2 -:
b) Direct the Commissioner of Income Tax and his subordinates to restrain from taking any further action as regards to recovery of tax, interest and penalty leviable for the relevant AY.;
c) Pass such order and/or grant such other relief as the Hon'ble Tribunal on the facts and in the circumstances of the case may consider appropriate;
2. It was submitted that the Assessing Officer (AO) has raised demand for AYs. 2009-10 at Rs. 1,41,16,820/-, for AY. 2010-11 Rs. 9,44,93,080/- and for AY. 2012-13 Rs. 1,19,94,936/- totaling to an amount of Rs. 12,06,04,836/- for all the years. Out of the above amounts, AO has already adjusted refunds from earlier years to the tune of Rs. 7,98,57,138/- and assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 1,19,60,000/- [including an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs on 24-03-2017]. It was submitted that AO has disallowed an amount of Rs. 19,22,44,500/- in the consequential order after the DRP directions even though the correct amount to be disallowed was only Rs. 11,53,46,700/- and this amount if substituted, there will be no demand but there will be a refund for AY. 2010-11. Ld. Counsel placed on record the application u/s. 154 made on 19-03- 2015 which was not yet disposed off by the AO. Coming to the demand for AY. 2012-13, it was the submission that AO did not implement the DRP direction and raised the demand. If the DRP direction was implemented, then there will be no demand even for this assessment year.
SA. Nos. 63, 64 & 65/Hyd/2017 :- 3 -:
3. Since the fact of not passing the order u/s. 154 and not following the DRP direction was to be examined by the DR, the said petitions which were posted originally on 28-03-2017 were adjourned to 30-03-2017 with a direction to DR to get the AO's report on these matters. The DR however, could not clarify about these two issues.
4. Considering that assessee has already discharged more than 80% of the tax demand raised and also voluntarily paid an amount of Rs. 25 Lakhs before filing the stay petitions, we are of the opinion that assessee has made out a prima-facie case in its favour. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the balance of the demand outstanding as on the date should be stayed till the disposal of appeal or for a period of six months whichever is earlier. AO is directed to complete the proceedings u/s. 154, if not completed which are pending for more than two years. As per Section 154(8), the AO shall pass an order within the period of six months from the end of the month in which the application is received by it. Since more than two years have passed, we are of the opinion that the demand for that assessment year (AY. 2010-
11) cannot be enforced, unless an order is passed immediately. Moreover, AO is bound to complete the assessment as per the directions of DRP. If the contentions of assessee's Counsel are correct, then, AO also cannot enforce the demand in AY. 2012-13 by taking any coercive action, when the order itself is not passed as per the provisions of the Act. Keeping these issues in mind, AO is directed not to take any coercive steps during the period of stay. Assessee should file necessary documents if any required for disposal of appeal at the earliest. Neither party should seek SA. Nos. 63, 64 & 65/Hyd/2017 :- 4 -:
adjournment without any valid reason. The cases are posted on 12-07-2017 for disposal of the appeals. Since the date is announced in open court, Registry is disposed with issuances of notice again.
5. In the result, all the Stay Applications of assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 30th March, 2017 upon conclusion of hearing Sd/- Sd/-
(P. MADHAVI DEVI) (B. RAMAKOTAIAH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Hyderabad, Dated 30th March, 2017
TNMM
SA. Nos. 63, 64 & 65/Hyd/2017
:- 5 -:
Copy to :
1. M/s. ValueLabs LLP, (Previously known as ValueLabs), Plot No. 41, Hi-Tech City, Phase-II, Madhapur, Hyderabad.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad.
3. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-8(1), Hyderabad.
4. Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP), Hyderabad.
5. Director of Income Tax (IT & TP), Hyderabad.
6. Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing), Hyderabad.
7. D.R. ITAT, Hyderabad.
8. Guard File