Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
P.Thanga Nadar, Nagercoil vs Dcit, Madurai on 3 February, 2017
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
'B' BENCH: CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी "ड.एस. सु दर %संह, लेखा सद य के सम*
BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Application Nos.26 & 27/Mds/2017
(in ITA Nos.222 & 223/Mds/2017)
नधा+रण वष+ /Assessment Year: 2008-09
Shri P.Thanga Nadar, Vs. The Dy Commissioner of
No.12, P.S.Nadar & Sons, Income Tax,
Court Road, Central Circle-1,
Nagercoil Madurai
[PAN: ACMPT 3069 L]
(अपीलाथ./Petitioner) (/0यथ./Respondent)
अपीलाथ. क1 ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.K.Ravi, Adv.
/0यथ. क1 ओर से /Respondent by : Mr.Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क1 तार ख/Date of Hearing : 03.02.2017
घोषणा क1 तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 03.02.2017
आदे श / O R D E R
PER D.S.SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed stay application requesting for stay of recovery of outstanding demand of ₹13,55,937/- for the AY 2008-09 resulted on account of Order u/s.143(3) r/w Sec.147 of Income Tax Act dated S.A. Nos.26 & 27/Mds/2017 (in ITA Nos.222 & 223/Mds/2017) :- 2 -:
23.09.2013 and ₹6,29,562/- in respect of Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) on 31.12.2009, pertaining to same Assessment Year.
2.0 The present stay application is filed for aggregate demand of ₹19,85,499/- for both the Assessment Orders. 3.0 Appearing for the assessee, the Ld.AR argued that the assessee is facing financial problems due to non-availability of liquid cash and the Ld.CIT(A) has passed both the orders ex-parte without considering the written submissions made before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR, further, argued that the authorized representative has requested for dates and the Ld.CIT(A) refused to adjourn the case. In view of the financial problems and the fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the Order ex-parte without considering the written submissions, the Ld.AR contended that the assessee is having good chances for succeeding in appeal and requested to grant the stay of recovery of demand. On the other hand, Ld.DR argued that the assessee is running Colleges and Institutions and he is financially sound to make the payment of demand. The Ld.DR further submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the Ld.CIT(A) in spite of three opportunities given and the Ld.CIT(A) has passed the Appeal Order on merits also and opposed for grant of stay. 4.0 We heard both the parties and noticed that the Ld.CIT(A) has the passed Order ex-parte placing reliance on Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 329. The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is facing S.A. Nos.26 & 27/Mds/2017 (in ITA Nos.222 & 223/Mds/2017) :- 3 -:
severe financial crunch and in case the demand is enforced, the assessee would face adverse financial problems. Therefore, we are convinced with the argument of the Ld.AR of the assessee and stay the recovery of demand for a period of 180 days with a condition that the assessee should not seek any adjournment on the date of hearing and in case the assessee seeks adjournment, the stay granted stands vacated automatically and department is at liberty to enforce the recovery.
5.0 In the result, the stay application of the petitioner is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 3rd February, 2017, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) ("ड.एस. सु दर %संह)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (D.S.SUNDER SINGH)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai,
6दनांक/Dated: 3rd February, 2017.
tln
आदे श क1 / त%ल7प अ8े7षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ./Petitioner 4. आयकर आयु9त/CIT
2. /0यथ./Respondent 5. 7वभागीय / त न ध/DR
3. आयकर आयु9त (अपील)/CIT(A) 6. गाड+ फाईल/GF