Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Lg Electronics India Pvt. Ltd., New ... vs Dcit, Circle-15(2), New Delhi on 22 November, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, द ल यायपीठ "श
ु वार-ई", द ल म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'FRIDAY-E', NEW DELHI
सु ी सष
ु मा चावला, या यक सद!य एवं ी $शांत मह'ष(, लेखा सद!य के सम+
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
!थगन अपील सं./S.A.No.1062/Del/2019
In
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.9000/Del/2019
नधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year 2014-15
LG Electronics India Pvt.Ltd.,
D-3, P3B, A-Wing (3rd) Floor,
Religare Building,
District Center Saket,
New Delhi-110017.
PAN-AAACL1745Q ..........अपीलाथ0/Appellant
vs
The DCIT,
Circle-15(2), New Delhi. ............. $1यथ0 / Respondent
अपीलाथ0 क2 ओर से / Appellant by : Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr.Adv.,
Sh. Neeraj Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ramit Katyal, CA
$1यथ0 क2 ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. C.P.Singh, Sr.DR
सन
ु वाई क2 तार ख / घोषणा क2 तार ख /
Date of Hearing : 22.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 22.11.2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The present stay application has been moved by the applicant against the recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.201.73 crores relating to Assessment Year 2014-15.
2
2. The Ld.AR for the applicant pointed out that various issues have been raised in the present appeal, however, some of the issues stand covered by the earlier order of the Tribunal in applicant's own case relating to Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10. He also pointed out that the appeals for the intervening Assessment Years are already being heard on similar issues. He also pointed that in respect of issues of allowance of expatriate salary, the similar issue arises which has been argued and is pending for disposal also. In respect of UP Sales Tax Subsidy of addition of Rs.24.22 crores, the Ld.AR for the applicant fairly admitted that though the issue has been decided in the earlier years but the same needs to be considered in view of the later decision of Hon'ble Apex Court on the issue. He has filed tabulated details of the additions made and consequent demand raised and incase the issues which are covered by the order of the Tribunal are set aside, then the balanced remand would reduce substantially.
3. The Ld.DR for the Revenue pointed out that the issue on UP Sales Tax Subsidy and even royalty is decided against the applicant by the Tribunal in earlier years and the issue of allowance of salary of expatriate totaling to Rs.70.68 crores has not been decided in the earlier years.
4. On the perusal of the record and after hearing both the authorized representatives, the present stay application has been moved by the applicant against the recovery of outstanding demand arising on account of addition made by the Assessing Officer on various issues. Majority of the issues have already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in the earlier years 3 and for intervening periods, the appeals are being heard. The Ld.AR for the applicant points out that incase the issues which have been adjudicated in favour of the applicant are considered then the balance demand in the hands of the applicant would reduce substantially. However, we find that one issue of royalty amounting to Rs.11.81 crores and another issue of UP Sales Tax Subsidy of Rs.24.22 crores have been decided against the applicant. Though, the applicant claims that the issue of UP Sales Tax Subsidy needs to be argued because of the later decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court but as on date, the issue stands decided against the applicant. Similarly the issue of payment of Rs.70.68 crores to the expatriate is also to be adjudicated. In such facts and circumstances, we are of the view that the applicant has a prime facie case in its favour as far as granting stay against the recovery of outstanding demand is concerned; however, balance of convenience would be met if part of the balance demand is paid by the applicant. Accordingly, we direct the applicant to pay sum of Rs.15 crores in two installments i.e. Rs.7.5 crores by 10.12.2019 and balance amount of Rs.7.5 crores by 30.12.2019. Thus, the recovery of outstanding demand is stayed till the disposal of appeal or for a period of 180 days, whichever is earlier. The appeal is fixed on out of turn basis on 04.02.2020 for which no notice shall be issued to either of the parties, as the date of hearing has been announced in the open Court. Both the parties shall not take any frivolous adjournments.
4
5. In the result, the stay application filed by the applicant is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22nd day of November, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
लेखा सद!य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद!य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
nd
द ल / दनांक Dated : 22 November, 2019.
* Amit Kumar *
आदे श क2 $ त6ल'प अ7े'षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ0 / The Appellant
2. $1यथ0 / The Respondent
3. आयकर आय9 ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. म< ु य आयकर आय9 ु त / The Pr. CIT
5. 'वभागीय $ त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, द ल / DR, ITAT, Delhi
6. गाड( फाईल / Guard file.
ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शानस स1या'पत $ त //True Copy// सहायक रिज!Bार, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण , द ल Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi