Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Sarva Capital Llc, New Delhi vs Acit, Circle-3(1)(2), International ... on 27 January, 2023
Author: G.S.Pannu
Bench: G.S.Pannu
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI "D-FRIDAY" BENCH: NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT &
SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER
S.A.No.59/Del/2023
[In ITA No.2289/Del/2022]
[Assessment Year : 2019-20]
Sarva Capital LLC, vs ACIT,
C/o-Dinesh Mehta & Co., CAs, Circle-3(1)(2),
21, Dayanand Road, Darya Ganj, International
New Delhi-110002. Taxation,
PAN-AACCL0102B New Delhi.
APPELLANT RESPONDENT
Appellant by Shri Hiren Mehta, CA
Respondent by Shri Sanjay Kumar, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 27.01.2023
Date of Pronouncement 27.01.2023
ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This stay application filed by the assessee seeking extension of stay of regularly disputed tax demand of Rs.2,44,23,398/- including the interest for the Assessment Year 2019-20.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions as made in the stay application. He contended that the assessee has a prima facie strong case and there is every likelihood of success. He contended that the authorities below denied the benefit of Treaty and thereby, taxed the income as Long Term Capital Gain u/s 112 of the Income tax Act, 1961 ("the Act") and raised gross tax demand of Rs.4,51,25,584/- including interest and a net tax demand of Rs.2,44,23,398/-. He further contended that the issue is otherwise under the identical facts, has been decided in favour of the assessee by the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee placed reliance on the following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal:-
[i] MIH India (Mauritius) Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No.1023/Del/2022; [ii] HSBC Bank (Mauritius) Ltd. vs DCIT 96 taxmann.com 544; and [iii] Blackstone FB Capital Partners Mauritius V Ltd. vs DCIT 138 taxmann.com 328.
3. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that the TRC issued by Mauritius Revenue Authority is sufficient evidence of the assessee's eligibility to avail DTAA benefits. He therefore, contended that in view of the facts stated in the stay application, the impugned tax demand may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal.
4. Per contra, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and submitted that the assessee may be directed to deposit the outstanding tax demand.
5. We have heard Ld. Authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record. As per the chart given by the assessee, out of the total tax demand of Rs.4,24,69,329/- and interest of Rs.26,56,255/-, it is stated that an amount of Rs.2,07,02,186/- has already been paid and the outstanding tax demand of Rs.2,44,23,398/- is required to be paid. Considering the fact that the issue in dispute has also been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and Ld. Counsel for the assessee has demonstrated a strong prima facie case, we therefore, are inclined to grant stay of disputed tax demand subject to the following conditions:-
[a] the assessee would deposit 20% of the outstanding tax demand within a week of receipt of this order;
Page | 2 [b] the assessee would not seek any adjournment without any reasonable cause;
[c] the outstanding tax demand shall remain stayed for a period of three months or till the disposal of the appeal in ITA No.2289/Del/2022 whichever is earlier.
6. We are also inclined to allow the request of the assessee for fixing the appeal for hearing on out of turn basis. We therefore, direct the Registry to fix the hearing of appeal in ITA No.2289/Del/2022 [Assessment Year 2019- 20] on 12.04.2023 on out of turn basis.
7. In the result, the stay application filed by the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 27 th January, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.S.PANNU) (KUL BHARAT)
PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
* Amit Kumar *
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT, NEW DELHI
Page | 3