Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur

M/S. Jasmine Design Private Limited, ... vs Ito, Ward-5(1), Jaipur on 10 January, 2020

               vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES 'B' JAIPUR

Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM

                          S.A No. 01/JP/2020
             (Arising out of ITA No. 1286/JP/2019)
             fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16

M/s Jasmine Design Pvt Ltd.                   cuke   The ITO,
50, Shambha Ji Marg,                          Vs.    Ward-5(1),
Inderpuri Colony, Brahampuri, Jaipur                 Jaipur.

LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AADCJ0715H
vihykFkhZ@Appellant                                izR;FkhZ@Respondent

     fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj l@
                         s Assessee by : Shri S. L. Poddar (Adv.)
     jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (JCIT)

       lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing         : 10/01/2020
       mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 10/01/2020

                              vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is a stay application arising out of ITA No. 1286/JP/2019 for A.Y 2015-16.

2. In its stay petition, the assessee has submitted as under:-

"The assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of gold/kundan meena jewellery. A survey was conducted u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Investigation Wing, Jaipur on 25.11.2014. The survey was S.A. No. 01/JP/2020 M/s Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur conducted in consequence of that one director Shri Rakesh Soni was found with jewellery at Jaipur Airport for Rs. 83,39,298/-. The valuation of the stock in the showroom was made at Rs. 1,89,62,349/- so the total stock comes to Rs. 2,73,01,637/- against book stock of Rs. 33,06,724/-. The directors of the assessee company has objected the valuation of stock and the stock valuation was also got done from another departmental valuer who has valued the same stock at Rs. 1,46,28,525/- instead of Rs. 2,73,01,637/-. The assessee also claims that entries of some purchase bills amounting to Rs. 1,11,26,742/- was also not made in the books of accounts. But the learned AO did not accept the contention regarding excess valuation of stock and made the addition of Rs. 1,30,46,608/- in the total income of the assessee and demand of Rs. 57,15,940/- was created. The addition was made only on account difference in valuation of stock. The assessee filed valuation report of another approved valuer of the department and the assessee has also offered Rs. 10,88,133/- as income for difference in valuation of stock. Therefore the addition was only on account of difference of valuation and nothing incriminating was found during the course of survey.

M/s Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur So the merits of case are also in favour of the assessee. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee.

The department is hardly pressing for recovery of demand whereas the assessee has already deposited the substantial part of demand i.e. of Rs. 1145000/- out of Rs. 57,15,940/- i.e. more than 20% of demand. Assessee is feared that the department will take coercive action. The revenue can seize the bank accounts to the assessee which will adversely effect the business of the assessee.

The assessee company is also in great financial trouble and passing through a tough time. The assessee has no liquid funds. The Revenue Authorities have not entertained the stay application of the assessee company. The assessee is not in a position to deposit the huge demand. All the assets of the assessee company are non-productive assets and all the business of the assessee has is very dull because of the market condition. The assessee is carrying on its business on loan funds. On the other hand it is likely that the department will take coercive action to recover the demand outstanding against the assessee. Therefore you are requested to stay the balance entire demand outstanding till the disposal of appeal.

M/s Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur In view of the above facts and considering the hardship on the assessee to make payment of demand, the prima facie case and protection of the interest of the revenue, the balance of convenience is in favour of assessee and it is fit case for granting stay of demand till the disposal of appeal by Hon'ble ITAT."

2. The ld. DR is heard who has objected to the grant of stay of outstanding demand.

3. After hearing both the parties and perusing the material available on record, we find that out of total demand of Rs 57,15,940, the assessee has already deposited 20% of demand amounting to Rs. 11,45,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee is directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- on or before 31st January, 2020 to which the ld AR has agreed on behalf of the assessee.

4. The matter is already listed for hearing on 3rd Feb, 2020 and would be treated and heard as stay granted matter. The assessee is directed not to seek any adjournment on the scheduled date of hearing and is directed to submit paperbook, if any one week in advance of the scheduled date of the hearing.

In the result, the stay application is disposed off in light of above directions.

M/s Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/01/2020.

              Sd/-                                                Sd/-
        ¼fot; iky jko½                                    ¼foØe flag ;kno½
       (Vijay Pal Rao)                             (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member                  ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 10/01/2020.
*Ganesh Kr.

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s Jasmine Design Private Limited, Jaipur

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward-5(1), Jaipur.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {S.A. No. 01/JP/2020} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 5