Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Tata Teleservices Limited, Chennai vs Ito Tds Ii(5), Chennai on 16 March, 2018
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, "बी" यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'B' BENCH, CHENNAI
ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य एवं ी धु वु आर.एल रे डी, या यक सद य के सम
Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member &
Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member
S.P. No. 72/Chny/2018
[In I.T.A. No. 339/Chny/2018]
Assessment Year :2007-08
M/s. Tata Teleservices Limited, The Income Tax Officer (TDS),
13th Floor, Prime Infocity - II, Vs. Ward II(5),
Rajiv Gandhi Salai, kandanchavadi, Chennai.
Chennai 600 096.
[PAN: AAACT2438A]
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Shri Sparsh Bhargava, Advocate
Respondent by : Shri B. Sagadevan, JCIT
सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of he a ring : 16.03.2018
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronoun cement : 16.03.2018
आदेश /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 outstanding demand of ₹.1,76,17,845/- being tax and interest till the final disposal of the appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08.
2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee, by relying on the stay petition of the assessee, has submitted that on verification of Tax Accounting Systems 2 S.P. No. 72/Chny/18 (TAS) module, it was ascertained that there was a shortfall of more than ₹.3,00,00,000/- in the TDS payments made under the head 194 J compared to the financial year 2005-06 and the financial year 2006-07. After considering various submissions of the assessee, the Assessing Officer levied tax to be deducted under section 194C at 2.24% and demand raised under section 201(1) of the Act at ₹.1,68,73,429/- and interest under section 201(1A) of the Act at ₹.7,44,416/- totalling to ₹.12,76,17,845/-. On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the assessment against which the assessee preferred further appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has further submitted that the petitioner has good case before the Tribunal.
3. Before us, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that against the outstanding demand , the assessee has already paid 50% and moreover, 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 assessee. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel that there is prima facie cause to grant stay and also submitted that the assessee has already paid 50% of the outstanding demand. The ld. 3 S.P. No. 72/Chny/18 Counsel has also submitted that the Kolkata Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Vodafone East Ltd. v. ACIT [2015] 61 taxmann.com 263 considered similar issue and decided the issue in favour of the assessee. By considering the above arguments of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, we are of the considered opinion that it is a fit case to grant stay. Accordingly, we grant stay of recovery of outstanding demand upto six months or till the final disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. Accordingly, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on the 16th March, 2018 at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 16.03.2018 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.