Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Trichirappalli District Central ... vs Acit Circle 1, Trichy on 27 April, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, ''डी'' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'D' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी अ ाहम पी. जॉज, लेखा सद य एवं ी धु वु आर.एल रे डी, या यक सद य के सम
Before Shri Abraham P. George, Accountant Member &
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member
S.P. No. 166/Chny/2018
[In I.T.A.No.2873/Chny/2017]
नधारण वष/Assessment Year :2012-13
Tiruchirapalli District Central The Assistant Commissioner of
Cooperative Bank Ltd., Vs. Income Tax,
Post Box No. 324, Fort Station Road, Circle 1,
Tiruchirapalli - 620 002. Tiruchirappalli.
[PAN: AAAAT5036C]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ क ओर से / Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate
यथ क ओर से/Respondent by : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of he a ring : 27.04.2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronoun cement : 27.04.2018
आदेश /O R D E R
PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
By means of present stay petition, the petitioner seeks grant of stay of recovery of outstanding demand of ₹.8,72,68,790/- towards disputed penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["Act" in short] till the final disposal of the appeal for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the stay petition, submitted that the petitioner has filed appeal against quantum addition 2 S.P. No.166/Chny/18 challenging the enhancement of the assessment in I.T.A. No. 1561/Chny/2017 and the order of the Tribunal is pending for pronouncement. Against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, the petitioner preferred further appeal before the Tribunal in I.T.A. No. 2873/Chny/2017, which is also pending for adjudication and pronouncement of order. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has good case before the Tribunal.
3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that there is prima facie case in appeal and prayed that the stay may be granted till the final disposal of the appeal.
4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has objected to grant the stay.
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 petitioner. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel that there is prima facie cause to grant stay. The ld. Counsel further argued that to cater the need of poor farmers, the district level cooperative banks are functioning and moreover, the petitioner will be at liquidity problems, if discharged the disputed arrears immediately. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant stay since the appeals against quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) 3 S.P. No.166/Chny/18 of the Act are pending before the Tribunal for adjudication/pronouncement of orders in I.T.A. No. 1561/Chny/2017 and 2873/Chny/2017. Accordingly, the stay of recovery of penalty amount is granted upto six months or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We also directed that the petitioner should not seek adjournment other than for just cause. With the above, stay petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off.
Order pronounced on the 27th April, 2018 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (DUVVURU RL REDDY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Chennai, Dated, the 27.04.2018
Vm/-
आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ /Appellant, 2. यथ /
Respondent, 3. आयकर आयु त (अपील)/CIT(A), 4. आयकर आयु त/CIT,
5. वभागीय त न ध/DR & 6. गाड फाईल/GF.