Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore
M/S. Ibm India Private Limited, ... vs Assistant Commissioner Of ... on 9 August, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
"A" BENCH : BANGALORE
BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.P. Nos. 234 to 237/Bang/2019
(in IT(TP)A Nos. 773 & 2041/Bang/2016,
625/Bang/2017 & 725/Bang/2018)
Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2013-14
M/s. IBM India Pvt. Ltd.,
The Assistant
No. 12, Subramanya
Commissioner of
Arcade,
Vs. Income Tax,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
Circle 3 (1) (1),
Bangalore - 560 029.
Bangalore.
PAN: AAACI4403L
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Assessee by : Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, Advocate
Revenue by : Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)
Date of hearing : 09.08.2019
Date of Pronouncement : 09.08.2019
ORDER
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
These four stay petitions are filed by the assessee seeking extension of earlier stay granted by the Tribunal in S.P. Nos. 9 to 12/Bang/2019 dated 01.02.2019 for a period of six months.
2. Learned AR of the assessee pointed out that this copy of stay petition order is available on pages 436 to 439 of stay petition in S.P. No. 234/Bang/2019. She also pointed out that this stay was granted by the Tribunal subject to further payment of 10% of the outstanding demand on or before 15.02.2019 and 10% of the outstanding demand on or before 15.03.2019. She also pointed out that this was also held by the Tribunal that the AO has to ascertain the correct outstanding balance of demand as on date of this order i.e. 01.02.2019. She submitted that AO has determined the correct amount of outstanding demand as per its order dated 05.02.2019, copy available on pages 440 to 441 of this stay petition in S.P. No. 234/Bang/2019. Thereafter she pointed out that for Assessment Year 2010- 11, the outstanding demand was determined at Rs. 5,52,74,94,527/- and therefore, the assessee was required to make further payment of 10% of this demand on or S.P. Nos. 234 to 237/Bang/2019 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 773 & 2041/Bang/2016, 625/Bang/2017 & 725/Bang/2018) Page 2 of 3 before 15.02.2019 and further payment of Rs. 10% was required to be made on or before 15.03.2019. She submitted that for A. Y. 2010 - 11, the assessee has made payment of Rs. 55.3 Crores on 14.02.2019 as per the challan available on page no. 444 of S.P. No. 234/Bang/2019 and one more challan is available on page no. 447 of S.P. No. 234/Bang/2019 as per which the assessee has made further payment of Rs. 55.3 Crores as on 14.03.2019. Both these payments are for Assessment Year 2010-11.
3. Thereafter, she submitted that for Assessment Year 2011-12, the AO determined the outstanding demand at Rs. 245.36 Crores approx. and the assessee has made payment of Rs. 24.50 Crores for Assessment Year 2011-12 on the same two dates i.e. 14.02.2019 and 14.03.2019. The relevant challans are available on pages 392 & 395 of the stay petition in S.P. No. 235/Bang/2019 for Assessment Year 2011-
12.
4. She submitted that for Assessment Year 2012-13, the outstanding demand was determined by the AO at Rs. 532.03 Crores and the assessee has made payment of Rs. 53.20 Crores for Assessment Year 2012-13 on each of these two dates i.e. 14.02.2019 and 14.03.2019 and the relevant challans are available on pages 393 and 396 of the stay petition in S.P. No. 236/Bang/2019 for Assessment Year 2012-
13.
5. She submitted that similarly, for Assessment Year 2013-14, the outstanding demand was determined by the AO at Rs. 588.18 Crores and the assessee has made payment of Rs. 58.90 Crores for Assessment Year 2013-14 on each of these two dates i.e. 14.02.2019 and 14.03.2019 and the relevant challans are available on pages 334 and 337 of the stay petition in S.P. No. 237/Bang/2019 for Assessment Year 2013-14.
6. Thereafter regarding non-hearing of the appeals, she submitted that on 02.05.2019, an oral request was made by ld. AR of assessee for a short adjournment due to compelling reasons and the hearing was adjourned to 14.05.2019. But thereafter, on 14.05.2019 and on 10.07.2019, the ld. DR of revenue sought adjournment and when the appeals last came for hearing on 01.08.2019, it was adjourned by the bench for want of time and now these appeals are fixed for hearing on 25.09.2019. She submitted that under these facts, it S.P. Nos. 234 to 237/Bang/2019 (in IT(TP)A Nos. 773 & 2041/Bang/2016, 625/Bang/2017 & 725/Bang/2018) Page 3 of 3 cannot be said that delay in disposal of appeals is attributable to assessee and therefore, extension of stay should be granted for a further period of six months. As against this, the ld. DR of revenue submitted that huge demand is outstanding and therefore, assessee should be asked to make further payment.
7. At this juncture, the bench observed that if there is any change in facts at present as compared to the facts on the date of granting of earlier stay, then the ld. DR of revenue may point out that. The ld. DR of revenue may also point out if delay in disposal is attributable to assessee and in reply, ld. DR of revenue had nothing to say on these two aspects.
8. We have considered the rival submissions and in view of the facts discussed above, we feel it proper to grant extension of stay for a period of six months from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeals whichever is earlier. The hearing of these appeals is already fixed on 25.09.2019. We want to make it clear that the assessee should not seek adjournment without justifiable reasons in course of hearing of these appeals and if the assessee does so, the stay granted by this order shall get vacated automatically.
9. In the result, all the four stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA)
Judicial Member Accountant Member
Bangalore,
Dated, the 9th August, 2019.
/MS/
Copy to:
1. Appellant 4. CIT(A)
2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore
3. CIT 6. Guard file
By order
Assistant Registrar,
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Bangalore.