Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Cochin
Sri.Mathew K Cherian, Kottayam vs The Acit, Kottayam on 24 March, 2017
SP nos.13 to 16/Coch/2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
COCHIN BENCH
KOCHI
BEFORE S/SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE, AM & GEORGE GEORGE K, JM
STAY PETITION nos.13 to 16/Coch/2017
Arising out of
ITA Nos. 513 to 516/Coch/2016
(Asst Years 2004-05, 05-06,07-08 and 2010-11 )
Shri Mathew K Cherian Vs The Asst Commr of Income Tax
Kosamattom House Central Circle
Manganam PO Kottayam
Kottayam
( Applicant) (Respondent)
PAN No. ABUPC1286H
Assessee By Sh T M Sreddharan
Revenue By Sh A Dhanaraj, Sr DR
Date of Hearing 24th March 2017
Date of pronouncement 24th March 2017
ORDER
PER ABRAHAM P GEORGE, AM:
These are Stay Petitions filed by the assessee seeking stay of recovery of outstanding demand of tax and interest for the impugned assessment years. The breakup of the total tax and interest and the balance outstanding of each of the assessment years, are detailed below:
Particulars A.Y 2004-05 A.Y 2005-06 A.Y 2007-08 A.Y 2010-11 Grand total Tax 2,06,31,529 11,74,769 21,04,811 2,37,65,066 4,76,76,176 Interest u/s 3,13,06,859 6,25,553 26,51,337 67,14,991 4,12,98,740 220(2) Total 5,19,38,388 18,00,322 47,56,148 3,04,80,057 8,89,74,915 Less tax paid 1,81,98,940 1,42,497 60,660 1,77,70,162 3,61,72,259 Refund adjusted 23,32,646 -- -- -- 23,32,646 Total 2,05,31,586 1,42,497 60,660 1,77,70,162 3,85,04,905 Balance 3,14,06,802 16,57,825 46,95,488 1,27,09,895 5,04,70,010 outstanding 1 SP nos.13 to 16/Coch/2017
2 The ld AR of the assessee submitted that the demand arose from the assessment done pursuant to a search u/s 132 of the Income tax 1961 conducted on 20.01.2010. As per the ld AR, the assessee had furnished the cash flow statement for the impugned assessments but the same were rejected by the Assessing Officer. According to him, drawings from Kosamattam Estate and Investments, in which the assessee was a partner, was not accepted by the AO. Further, as per the ld AR the balance sheet and profit and loss account of the above firm were filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years; but were also rejected citing errors therein, which were not true. As per the ld AR, the lower authorizes had not considered the documents furnished by the assessee. According to the ld AR, though slight relief was given by the CIT(A) on appeals filed by the assessee for the impugned assessment years, still, according to him a large number of grounds were rejected by the d CIT(A) without appreciating the evidence available on record. Further, according to him, out of the total demand, the assessee had paid more than 43.2%. It was submitted that the assessee was facing financial hardship due to recession in the business, and was unable to pay the huge tax demand. Thus, it was submitted that the stay has be granted for the payment of balance outstanding. 3 Per contra, the ld DR submitted that the assessee could not prove its financial difficulties for not paying the demand. According to the ld DR, assessee remitted a part of the tax only when the department insisted upon such payments. Balance of convenience, as per the ld DR, was in favour of the department. 2
SP nos.13 to 16/Coch/2017 4 We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Assessing Officer found a number of flaws in the balance sheet and profit and loss statement of the firm in which assessee was a partner from where assessee had drawn substantial amounts to justify the investments made during the impugned assessment years. As per the assessee, the drawings shown by him for all the assessment years were correct. The contention of the assessee that if stay is not granted, it would cause serious and irreparable damage to the assessee. We find that the assessee has paid 43.2% of the total demand which works out to 80.7% of the tax component. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that if the assessee pays a further sum of Rs 40lakhs in four equal monthly installments of Rs.10 lakhs each, a stay of demand shall be granted for a period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of the appeals for all the impugned assessment years, whichever is earlier. The first installment shall be paid on or before 30.3.2017. Accordingly, subject to the condition, that the assessee effect a further payment of Rs. 40 lakhs in equal monthly installment of Rs.10 lakh each, of which first installment of Rs. 10 lakhs shall be paid on or before 30.3.2017, we stay the balance outstanding demand for a period of 6 months from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of the appeal, whichever period expires earlier for all the impugned assessment years.. We also direct the assessee not to seek adjournment on the date fixed for hearing, failing which this stay order shall stand vacated. Ordered accordingly. 3
SP nos.13 to 16/Coch/2017 5 The Registry is directed to post the appeals for hearing in due course. 6 In the result, the stay petitions filed by the assessee are partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 24th day of March 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(GEORGE GEORGE K) (ABRAHAM P GEORGE)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Cochin: Dated 24th March 2017
Raj*
Copy to:
1. Appellant -
2. Respondent -
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT,
5. DR
6. Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
ITAT, COCHIN
4