Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Unique Metalloys P.Ltd, New Delhi vs Jcit, Range-25, New Delhi on 8 November, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH : FRIDAY : NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Stay Application No.920/Del/2019
(ITA No.7448/Del/2019)
Assessment Year: 2013-14
Unique Metalloys P. Ltd., Vs. JCIT, Range-25,
S-241, Basement, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi.
New Delhi.
PAN: AAACU9577F
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri Rohit Tiwari &
Shri Kanika Jain, Advocates
Revenue by : Ms Nidhi Sharma, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing : 08.11.2019
Date of Pronouncement: 08.11.2019
ORDER
PER R.K. PANDA, AM:
The assessee, through this Stay Application, requests the Tribunal to stay the realization of the outstanding demand of Rs.38,34,340/-.
2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, referring to the contents of the Stay Application, submitted that as against total income of Rs.43,25,170/-, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment determining the total income at Rs.1,25,80,590/-. The major addition is on account of disallowance of improvement cost while computing the capital gain. He submitted that the ld.CIT(A), in the instant case, has SA No.920/Del/2019 passed an ex parte order by relying on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. Reported in 118 ITR 461 and has not decided the appeal on merit. He submitted that the Assessing Officer is pressing hard for the recovery of the demand which the assessee is not in a position to meet. He accordingly submitted that the full stay should be granted. He also requested for an out-of-turn hearing of the appeal.
3. The ld. DR, on the other hand, strongly opposed the stay application filed by the assessee. She submitted that the assessee has not explained his financial condition and has not filed the bank statement and, therefore, no stay should be granted to the assessee.
4. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that the ld.CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee due to non-appearance and he has not decided the appeal on merit. At the same time, neither the assessee has filed its bank statement nor explained any justifiable reason for non-appearance before the CIT(A). We, therefore, are of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for granting blanket stay to the assessee. Further, considering the totality of the facts, we direct the assessee to deposit an amount of Rs.5 lakh on or before 30th November, 2019 and the balance amount is stayed for a period of six months from today or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The request of the assessee for an out-of-turn hearing is also accepted and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 12th December, 2019 which 2 SA No.920/Del/2019 announced in the open court. It was further announced that no separate notice of hearing shall be sent to which both the parties agreed.
5. In the result, the Stay Application filed by the assessee is allowed in the terms indicated above.
Pronounced in the open court on conclusion of the hearing on 08.11.2019 itself.
Sd/- Sd/-
(SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (R.K. PANDA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMFBER
Dated: 08th November, 2019
dk
Copy forwarded to
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi
3