Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Shri Mangi Kandoi, Jaipur vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 26 October, 2018
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
S.A. Nos. 29, 30 & 31/JP/2018
(Arising out of ITA Nos. 1090, 1091 & 1168/JP/2018)
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14
Mangi Lal Kandoi, cuke D.C.I.T.
D-91, Ambabari, Jhotwara Road, Vs. Central Circle-3,
Jaipur. Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACMPK 6560 B
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Varinder Mehta (CIT).
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 26/10/2018
mn~?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 26/10/2018
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. By way of these three stay applications, the assessee is seeking stay against the outstanding demand of Rs. 3.33 crores arising from the assessment framed U/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14.
2. The ld AR has submitted that the Assessing Officer has raised total demand of Rs. 6,88,97,583/- for all these three years inclusive of interest of Rs. 2,89,46,026/-. The ld AR has, thus, contended that the assessee has 2 S.A. No. 29 to 31/JP/2018 Mangi Lal Kandoi Vs. DCIT already deposited more than 50% of the total outstanding demand and further the Assessing Officer has not given the credit of Rs. 25.00 lacs since last three years with the department and an interest of about 20 lacs is also to be allowed as credit against the outstanding demand. Thus, after considering the total amount of Rs. 45 lacs being credit not given by the Assessing Officer, the balance outstanding would be only Rs. 2.88 crores. The ld. AR has referred to the financial status of the assessee and submitted that the assessee has paid part demand by taking a loan of Rs. 2.76 crores from A.U. Finance Limited. Thus, when the assessee is facing financial problem, therefore, the balance outstanding demand may be stayed till disposal of the appeals of the assessee. He has further contended that the assessee has a good prima facie case on merit and the Assessing Officer has already initiated the proceedings U/s 226 of the Act which is going to cause an irreparable loss to the assessee.
3. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has objected to the stay of demand and submitted that the assessee may be directed to pay the balance outstanding at least in installments.
4. Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record at the outset we note that for these three assessment 3 S.A. No. 29 to 31/JP/2018 Mangi Lal Kandoi Vs. DCIT years, the total demand inclusive of interest and the payment made by the assessee is as under:
Assessment Disputed Demand Demand Outstanding year Tax Demand Interest Total Deposited Demand Demand Demand 2011-12 87,16,886/- 69,14,678/- 1,56,31,564/- 1,43,44,700/- 10,98,378/- 2012-13 1,94,90,866/- 1,45,19,633/- 3,40,10,499/- 1,20,46,748/- 2,19,63,751/-
+ (25 Lacs) 2013-14 1,17,43,805/- 75,11,715/- 1,92,55,520/- 90,13,600/- 1,02,41,920/- Total 3,99,51,557/- 2,89,46,026/- 6,88,97,583/- 3,54,05,048/- 3,33,04,049/- Thus, out of total demand of Rs. 6,88,97,583/-, the assessee has already paid an amount of Rs. 3,54,05,048/-.
4.1 Though, the ld AR has submitted that there is another amount of Rs. 25 lacs and interest on the said amount of Rs. 20.00 lacs is also to be given credit against the demand by the Assessing Officer, however, even without accepting the said amount being in dispute we note that the assessee has already paid more than 50% of the total demand inclusive of interest and further as per the balance sheet of the assessee, the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 2.76 crores from A.U. Finance Limited to meet the payment of demands in question and hence the liquidity for payment of the balance demand is not available with the assessee as per the balance sheet. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee has already paid more than 50% of the total demand and the financial condition of the assessee is also precarious as the balance sheet of the assessee is heavily debt laden, accordingly we stay the balance 4 S.A. No. 29 to 31/JP/2018 Mangi Lal Kandoi Vs. DCIT outstanding demand for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeals of the assessee whichever is earlier. The appeals of the assessee are already fixed for hearing on 27/11/2018. However, we have made it clear that no separate notice of hearing of the appeals of the assessee shall be issued and the parties have noted down the date of hearing. We further clarify that in case the assessee seeks adjournment of hearing without any reasonable cause, the stay granted to the assessee shall stand vacated.
5. In the result, all these three stay petitions are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 26/10/2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼foØe flag ;kno½ ¼fot; iky jko½
(VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO)
ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 26th October, 2018.
*Ranjan
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mangi Lal Kandoi, Jaipur.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The D.C.I.T., Central Circle-3, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (S.A. 29 to 31/JP/2018) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar