Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Ipsita Naik, New Delhi vs Ito, Ward-29(5), New Delhi on 15 March, 2019
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI "FRIDAY-C" BENCH, NEW DELHI )
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
AND
SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Stay Application No. 142/Del/2019
( In ITA No. 678/Del/2019)
Asstt. Year : 2014-15
IPSITA NAIK, Vs. ITO, WARD 29(5),
C/O BABUBHAI & CO., NEW DELHI
152, OFFICE COMPLEX,
JHANDEWALAN EXTENSION,
PHASE-1, NEW DELHI
(PAN: AEIPN8708G)
( Applicant) ( Respondent )
Applicant by : Sh. Shantanu Jain, ADV.
Respondent by : Sh. K. Hauthang, Sr. DR.
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM
This Stay Application u/R 35A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 has been preferred by the assessee, seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 15,58,208/-. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submitted that out of total disputed tax demand of Rs. 20,04,080/-, Rs. 4,45,872/- has already been paid and the balance outstanding demand is Rs. 15,58,208/-. It was further submitted that there is huge pressure of recovery from the income tax department as the bank account of the assessee has also been 1 attached wherein an amount of Rs. 1,08,000/- and Rs. 37,260/- has been withdrawn on difference occasions, without disposing off the stay application. It was further submitted that assessee had paid, as on date, an amount of Rs. 4,45,872/- which is 30.17% of total tax demand and 22.2% of total demand. It was further submitted that irreparable hardship is being caused to the assessee as the entire business of the assessee has been effected because of the attachment of bank account of the assessee. He further submitted that the financial condition of the assessee's business is not in position to pay more. He further submitted that the assessee's case is covered by the Board Circular No. 334 dated 3.4.82 reproduced in 217 ITR 641 (All.). In view of above, he submitted that assessee has prima facie case and balance of convenience is also in his favour for granting the stay on the outstanding demand in dispute may kindly be stayed till the disposal of the appeal and also requested for grant early hearing of the main appeal.
2. On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request for grant of stay made by the Ld. counsel for the assessee, but did not raise any objection on the early hearing of the main appeal.
3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records available with us, especially the orders of the authorities below. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that assessee has not established the prima facie case in its favour and also balance of convenience is also not in its favour for stay on the balance outstanding demand in dispute. Accordingly, the Stay on the outstanding demand is not granted. However, the request for early hearing in the main appeal is granted 2 and Registry is directed to fix the main appeal for hearing on 25.03.2019. Since the date has been pronounced in the Open Court, there is no need to send the notices to the parties. The copy of this Order be given to both the parties DASTI.
4. In the result, the Assessee's Stay Applications is allowed in the aforesaid manner.
Order pronounced on 15-03-2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
[L.P. SAHU] [H.S. SIDHU]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Date 15/03/2019
SRBHATNAGAR
Copy forwarded to: -
1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. DIT 4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT
TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT,
Delhi Benches
3