Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Piramal Enterprise Ltd, Mumbai vs Acit Rg 7(3)(2), Mumbai on 3 January, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "J" MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
SHRI N.K. PRADHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)
SA No. 497/Mum/2019
(In ITA No. 850/MUM/2016)
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Piramal Enterprises Ltd., The Assistant
Piramal Ananta, Kamani Vs. Commissioner of
Junction, Kurla (West), Income Tax - 7(3)(2),
Mumbai - 400070 Mumbai
PAN No. AAACN4538P
Appellant Respondent
Assessee by : Mr. Ronak G. Doshi &
Mr. Arijit Jain, ARs
Revenue by : Mr. Uodal Raj Singh, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 03/01/2020
Date of pronouncement : 03/01/2020
ORDER
PER N.K. PRADHAN, AM
By means of the present stay application, the applicant seeks further extension of the stay for the assessment year 2011-12, originally granted by the Tribunal on certain conditions on 18.03.2016, which has been subsequently extended vide order dated 14.06.2019.
2. The Ld. counsels for the applicant submit that the stay against the demand granted by the order of the Tribunal dated 14.06.2019 has expired on 13.12.2019 and hence, unless the applicant is granted a further stay, there could be coercive action by the Department and this will create undue financial hardship. It is stated that the applicant has made payment Piramal Enterprises Ltd. 2 SA No. 497/Mum/2019 as required by the Tribunal in its order dated 18.03.2016 and complied with all the conditions stated in the said stay order. It is further stated that for the impugned assessment year, the conditions stipulated u/s 80-IC(4) of the Act are not applicable, since the applicant is in the 5th year after the formation of Baddi Unit ; the Tribunal in ITA No. 1257/Mum/2014 for AY 2009-10 has held that the conditions of eligibility under question have to be examined only in the year of formation, following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DCIT v. Ace Multi Axes Systems Ltd. (2018) 400 ITR 141 (SC). Thus it is stated that the disallowance of Rs.1,51,62,33,075/- u/s 80-IC made by the Assessing Officer would be deleted in view of the above decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in applicant's own case for the AY 2009-10 and this would lead to drastic reduction in demand.
On the other hand, the Ld. DR opposes the extension of stay on the ground that the applicant has paid only an amount of Rs.13 crore.
3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant materials on record. It is indisputably found that the terms of stay originally granted have been duly complied with. The appeal could not be heard for one reason or the other, but for no fault of the assessee. Considering the entirety of facts and circumstances of the instant case, we are inclined to grant extension of stay for a further period of six months from today or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
4. In the result, the stay application is allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 03/01/2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.K. PRADHAN)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Piramal Enterprises Ltd. 3
SA No. 497/Mum/2019
Mumbai;
Dated: 03/01/2020
Rahul Sharma Sr. P.S.
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Sr. Private Secretary)
ITAT, Mumbai