Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Dilip Kumar, Chennai vs Ito Non Corporate Ward 4(3), Chennai on 8 February, 2019
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, "सी" ायपीठ, चे ई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी इं टरी रामा राव, लेखा सद एवं ी धु ु आर.एल रे ी, ाियक सद के सम
Before Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Accountant Member &
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member
S.P. No. 29/Chny/2019
[In I.T.A. No. 2775/Chny/2018]
Assessment Year: 2015-16
Shri Dilip Kumar, The Income Tax Officer,
No. 7/4, 1st Cross Street, Vs. Non Corporate Ward 4(3),
Sylvan Lodge Colony, Kilpauk, Chennai.
Chennai 600 010.
[PAN: AAKPK5252C]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri N. Vijay Kumar, CA
Respondent by : Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Addl. CIT
सु नवाई की तारीख/ Date of hearing : 08.02.2019
घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 08.02.2019
आदे श /O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This stay petition is filed by the assessee seeking stay from recovery of the balance outstanding demand of ₹.2,65,92,937/- till the final disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-16.
2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, by relying on the stay petition of the assessee, has submitted that the assessment under section 143(3) of 2 S.P. No. 29/Chny/19 the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] was completed assessing the total income of the petitioner at ₹.7,84,17,238/- by rejecting the claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act as unexplained credit under section 68 of the Act. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition made under section 68 of the Act, against which, the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal.
3. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the demand, the assessee has already paid 32% of the total demand and moreover, there is prima facie case in the appeal filed by the assessee, it was prayed that the stay may be granted till the final disposal of the appeal.
4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has seriously objected to grant the stay since the appeal of the assessee is posted for hearing on 25.02.2019.
5. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We have carefully considered the entire facts of the case and arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee. In this case, against the demand, the assessee has paid 32% and moreover, the assessee did not file any financial statement expressing financial constraints. Moreover, the appeal of the 3 S.P. No. 29/Chny/19 assessee is posted for hearing on 25.02.2019 and notice of hearing has already been issued by RPAD. In view of these facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case to grant stay and accordingly, the petition seeking stay on the outstanding demand stands dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 8th February, 2019 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (INTURI RAMA RAO) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 08.02.2019 Vm/-
आदे श की ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant, 2. थ / Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु /CIT, 5. िवभागीय ितिनिध/DR & 6. गाड फाईल/GF.