Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Au Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur vs Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 21 March, 2023
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,"B" JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh]U;kf;d lnL; ,o aJh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
Stay Application Nos. 02/JPR/2022
(Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 203/JPR/2022)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18
AU Small Finance Bank Limited cuke Assistant Commissioner of
CP3-235 Industrial Area, Apparel Vs. Income Tax,
Park, Jaipur. Circle-2,
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAACL 2777 N
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
Stay Application Nos. 03/JPR/2022
(Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 211/JPR/2022)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2017-18
Aavas Financiers Limited cuke Assistant Commissioner of
nd
201-202, 2 Floor, Southend Vs. Income Tax,
Square, Mansarovar Industrial Area, Circle-2,
Jaipur. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAJCA 2237 M
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Sanjay Jhanwar (Sr. Adv.),
Sh. Rahul Lakhwani ( Adv.) &
Sh. Prateek Sharma (C.A.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 21/03/2023
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21/03/2022
vkns'k@ORDER
2 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Both the stay application have been filed by the assessee praying therein to stay the proceedings started pursuant to an order passed u/s 263 of the Act.
2. First we are taking S.A. No. 02/JPR/2022 for discussion and our findings.
3. This stay application was fixed for hearing on 21.06.2022. As the main appeal was taken up for regular hearing the stay application was not disposed off. The main appeal was heard but the order was could not pronounced on the earlier occasions by the Bench. Now again the matter was relisted and ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Bench has already given sufficient time to the ld. DR on two occasions. Again today instead of arguing the matter on merits Revenue is seeking time. In the light of these facts the ld. AR requested the Bench to disposed off the stay applications filed by the assessee. In addition the ld. AR of the assessee also drawn our attention to the early hearing petition filed. The same was not disposed off considering the plea of the Revenue that the 3 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
matter is already list on 21.03.2023 for argument. Now, the matter is listed today we have received a letter from the Revenue stating that Shri Ajay Malik, CIT/DR who has argued the matter has gone for long leave. The incharge ld. CIT/DR did not even come to the bench apprise the fact whether even today the ld. CIT/DR is having the file or not. In light of this facts, we do not have any option but to hear the stay applications filed by the assessee. Therefore, the stay application filed by the assessee is decided based on merit.
4. At the outset of the hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee filed a detailed chart explaining the issues raised by the ld. PCIT and judicial precedence/ merits of the case. As it is evident from the finding of the ld. PCIT. In this matter ld. AR further submitted that all the issues raised by the ld. PCIT are not only covered on facts but are also covered on the judicial decisions relied upon. Therefore, looking to this fact and the balance of convenience which is in favour of the assessee the stay of proceedings be granted. As regards the power of the Tribunal on staying the proceedings already started by the Assessing Officer pursuant to the order of the ld. PCIT, the ld. AR for the assessee relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex 4 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Court in the case of CIT vs. Bhupen Champak Lal Dalal (2001) 116 Taxman 746 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court confirmed the action of granting the stay against the proceeding u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. AR of the assessee while perusing the stay application also relied upon the finding of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT vs. Income Tax Appellate Trinbunal (2013) 31 taxmann.com 369 (Delhi). The relevant finding of the court in this matter is reiterated hereinbelow:-
"21. So far as the order of the Tribunal passed on 21.05.2010 is concerned, it is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme court in ITO v. M.K. Mohammed Kunhi [1969] 71 ITR 815 that the Tribunal, while exercising its appellate powers under the Income Tax Act has also the power to ensure that the fruits of success are not rendered futile or nugatory and for this purpose it is empowered, to pass appropriate orders including orders of stay. In ITO v. Khalid Mehdi Khan [1977] 110/ITR 79 the Andhra Pradesh High Court, applying the rule laid down in M.K. Mohammed Kunhi (supra), stayed the assessment proceedings pending before the Assessing Officer consequent to the directions of the CIT given in orders passed under Section 263 of the Act. The stay order passed by the Tribunal on 21.05.2010 is, therefore, supported by ample authority. It is part of the exercise of the appellate power of the Tribunal under Section 254 (1). The object of the order is twofold:
the first is to prevent multiplicity of proceedings and harassment to the assessee, with the possibility of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer becoming meaningless if ultimately the order 5 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
passed by the CIT is found to be invalid on grounds of jurisdiction or on merits and, second, to ensure that the fruits of success in the appeals are not rendered meaningless or nugatory. It has not been shown before us by the petitioner as to what error was committed by the Tribunal in passing the stay orders, nor was it argued that the Tribunal did not exercise its discretion on the basis of settled parameters for granting stay of proceedings."
5. The ld. AR of the assessee further argued that the assessee is a bank and regular higher tax payer assessee. If the order consequent to the order of the ld. PCIT is passed then it will raise huge demand of tax and interest before 31st March, 2023 and in that situation the assessee will suffer irreparable loss as almost all issues are covered which are raised by the ld. PCIT and considering the provisions of Section 263 of the Act the proceedings can be stayed by the Tribunal based on the decision relied upon.
6. Per contra, the ld. DR contented that there is no demand at present so raised by the Assessing Officer. But looking to the peculiar facts, the bench may consider the request of ld. AR of the assessee for granting the stay of proceeding.
7. We have heard the parties at length and have also persuaded the documents and decisions placed on record. The 6 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
Bench noted that there is a merit in the arguments of the ld. AR of the assessee as demonstrated by way of a chart. Considering the arguments of both the parties and considering the entirety of the fact of the case and also after evaluating the order passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and Delhi High Court, we do not have any hesitation in granting the stay for keeping in abeyance the proceedings pending before the ld. Assessing Officer pursuant to the order of the ld. PCIT u/s 263 of the Act. Based on the arguments advanced by both the parties we feel that a wholesome rule will in matters of this nature where courts have to take the view that when the conclusions arrived at by the appellate authorities have a relevance and bearing upon the conclusions to be reached in the case, necessarily one authorities will have to wait the outcome of the other authority. Based on these observations we direct that the proceedings be stayed for 90 days from the date of issue of this order and the Assessing Officer is directed not to proceed against the assessee.
8. The Bench feels that the fact in the case Aavas Financiers Limited in SA No. 03/JPR/2022 is exactly the similar to the fact SA No. 02/JPR/2022 and therefore, it is not 7 SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2022 AU Small finance Bank Ltd. & Ors.
imperative to repeat the fact in SA No. 03/JPR2022. The decision taken us in SA No. 02/JPR/2022 shall apply mutatis mutandis to SA No. 03/JPR/2022.
In the result, both the stay Applications of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21/03/2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 21/03/2023
*Santosh
vkns'k dh izfrfyfivxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. The Appellant- M/s AU Small Finance Bank Limited, Jaipur.
Aavash Financiers Limited, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ACIT, Circle-2, Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld 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 (SA No. 02 & 03/JPR/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar