Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bharathi Cement Corporation Private ... vs Acit, Circle 2(3), Hyderabad on 20 June, 2017
SA No 90 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corpn P Ltd Hyderabad
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hyderabad ' B ' Bench, Hyderabad
Before Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, Judicial Member
AND
Shri S.Rifaur Rahman, Accountant Member
S.A. No.90/Hyd/2017
(Arising out of ITA No.1050/Hyd/2017)
(Assessment Year: 2009-10)
M/s. Bharathi Cement Vs Asstt. Commissioner of
Corporation Pvt Ltd Income Tax, Circle-2(3)
Hyderabad Hyderabad
PAN: AADCR 3079G
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee : Shri S. Kalyanasundaram
For Revenue : Smt. M. Kiranmayee, Sr.
Standing Counsel for Deptt.
Date of Hearing: 15.06.2017
Date of Pronouncement: 20.06.2017
ORDER
Per Smt. P. Madhavi Devi, J.M.
The assessee has filed this application seeking extension of stay of the collection of the outstanding demand of tax of Rs.31,37,70,804 granted earlier vide order dated 6.1.2017 in SA No.81/Hyd/2016. It is stated that the assessee has first filed a stay application No.59/Hyd/2015 which was allowed vide order dated 1.1.2016 and further extended in S.A. No.81/Hyd/2016 vide order dated 6.1.2017 and prayed that the stay of the demand may further be extended till the disposal of the appeal in ITA No.1050/Hyd/2014.
Page 1 of 4SA No 90 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corpn P Ltd Hyderabad
2. The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issues on merits in the appeal before the Tribunal in assessee's case are similar to the issues in the case of M/s. Jagathi Publications and as one of the issues in the case of M/s. Jagathi Publications is still pending disposal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the appeals are being adjourned from time to time and therefore, the stay granted earlier vide order dated 6.1.2017 may be extended. The learned Standing Counsel for the Department, however, opposed the grant of stay on the ground that the assessee has not furnished the financial hardship in making of the payment of tax. She further submitted that the appeal before the Tribunal is against the order u/s 263 of the Act and that consequential order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 263 of the Act has also been passed and the same is pending adjudication before the CIT (A). She submitted that by seeking stay of the outstanding demand of tax, the assessee is seeking stay of the consequential proceedings and therefore, the stay application is not maintainable. She submitted that this is not a case deserving stay of the outstanding demand of tax.
3. The learned Counsel for the assessee, in his rebuttal, submitted that all these objections of the Revenue were also taken at the time of the grant of stay dated 1.1.2016 and the Tribunal after considering these submissions has granted stay. Since there is no change in facts and circumstances as on date, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the stay should be extended.
Page 2 of 4SA No 90 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corpn P Ltd Hyderabad
4. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, we find that vide order dated 1.1.2016, this Tribunal has taken note of the fact that the stay application is for stay of the demand arising out of the consequential order passed by the AO, i.e. consequent to the order of the learned CIT u/s 263 of the Act directing the AO to make an addition and since the consequential order is directly on the direction issued by the CIT and such order is before this forum, we granted absolute stay of the amount outstanding at Rs.31,37,70,804 for a period of six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. Subsequently, the assessee vide another application S.A. No.,33/Hyd/2016 sought extension of stay. Observing that the assessee is not at fault for the delay in the disposal, the stay was extended by a further period of six months. On expiry of the said period, the assessee has further approached the Tribunal in S.A. No.81/Hyd/2016 and after taking note of the earlier proceedings, vide orders dated 6.1.2017, the stay was further extended by a period of 180 days and this petition before us is seeking extension of such stay. As all the facts and the circumstances canvassed by the Department now were also canvassed in the earlier proceedings and on being satisfied that the assessee deserves absolute stay of the outstanding demand of tax, the stay was granted. Since there is no change in facts and circumstances and one of the issue is still pending adjudication before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Jagathi Publications, the appeal has been adjourned from time to time and the delay is not attributable to the assessee, we are inclined to grant further stay of collection of outstanding demand of tax for 180 days from today or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier.
Page 3 of 4SA No 90 of 2017 Bharathi Cement Corpn P Ltd Hyderabad
5. In the result, stay application filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th June, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S.Rifaur Rahman) (P. Madhavi Devi)
Accountant Member Judicial Member
Hyderabad, dated 20th June, 2017.
Vinodan/sps
Copy to:
1 M/s. Bharathi Cement Corporation Private Ltd, 8-2-626 Reliance Majestic, Road No.10, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034 2 Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3) IT Towers, Opp:
Mahaveer Hospital, AC Guards, Hyderabad
3 CIT -II Hyderabad 4 Add. CIT - Range 2 Hyderabad 5 The DR, ITAT Hyderabad 6 Guard File By Order Page 4 of 4