Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Bsc C&C; Jv, New Delhi vs Jcit, Range-63, New Delhi on 8 November, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, द ल यायपीठ "श
ु वार-ई", द ल म
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH 'FRIDAY-E', NEW DELHI
सु ी सष
ु मा चावला, या यक सद!य एवं ी $शांत मह'ष(, लेखा सद!य के सम+
BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER &
SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
!थगन अपील सं./S.A.No.-958/Del/2019
आयकर अपील सं. /In ITA No.-869/Del/2019
नधा(रण वष( / Assessment Year: 2014-15
BSC C & C JV,
74, Hemkunt Colony,
Opp. Nehru Place, New Delhi-110048.
PAN-AADFB8115G ..........अपीलाथ0/Appellant
vs
The JCIT,
Range-63, New Delhi. ............. $1यथ0 / Respondent
अपीलाथ0 क2 ओर से / Appellant by : Sh. Tarandeep Singh, Adv.
$1यथ0 क2 ओर से / Respondent by : Sh. Surender Pal, Sr.DR
सन
ु वाई क2 तार ख / घोषणा क2 तार ख /
Date of Hearing : 08.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 08.11.2019
आदे श / ORDER
PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM:
The present stay application is moved by the applicant for extension of stay granted against the recovery of outstanding demand.
2. The Ld.AR for the applicant at the outset, pointed out that the present application is moved for extension of stay already granted to the applicant by Page | 1 the Tribunal vide order dated 22.02.2019. He took us through various paras of the said stay order and pointed out that the Tribunal noted vide para 6 that out of total refund of Rs.13.76 crores claimed by the applicant, an amount of Rs.10.78 crores was left to be adjusted. The Tribunal vide para 7 had directed the Revenue to adjust the refund of Rs.10.78 crores and also directed the applicant to deposit Rs.7 crores and the balance demand was stayed for a period of six months. The Ld.AR for the applicant stated that the applicant had not sought any adjournment on the dates of hearing fixed and hence, extension of stay may be granted to the applicant.
3. The Ld. DR for the Revenue strongly opposed the application moved by the applicant and pointed out that huge demand was outstanding against the applicant and reasonable amount should be directed to be paid by the applicant. He further placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Collector of Central Excise Chandan Nagar, West vs Dunlop India Ltd. & Ors., 1985 AIR 330 (SC).
4. The Ld.AR for the applicant brought to our notice that when the stay was granted by the Tribunal, the proceedings were attended by the Additional CIT of the Range and also the concerned Assessing Officer.
5. On the perusal of the record and after hearing both the authorized representatives and after perusing the order of the Tribunal granting stay against the recovery of outstanding demand, order dated 22.02.2019, we find that the Tribunal had considered the issues arising in the appeal and also the directions of the Hon'ble High Court in a Writ petition filed by the applicant and after not only hearing the Ld. DR, but in the presence of the Additional CIT Page | 2 of the Range and the concerned Assessing Officer, had passed the order dated 22.02.2019. It may be put on record that there is no change in facts as they were before the Tribunal while granting of stay against the recovery of outstanding demand in the first round. The applicant has complied with the directions of the Tribunal to deposit sum of Rs.7 crores. The Revenue was also directed to adjust the refund of Rs.10.78 crores against the outstanding demand, which till date has not been carried out. The Ld. DR for the Revenue pointed out that because of the applicant, the said exercise could not be carried out. We find no merit in the said plea of the Revenue. However, we direct the applicant to approach the Assessing Officer with necessary applications for adjustment of the balance demand due to the applicant totaling to Rs.10.78 crores. We also grant extension of stay against the recovery of the outstanding demand for a period of six months or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. The appeal is already fixed for hearing on 05.12.2019 for which no separate notice shall be issued to both the parties. No frivolous adjournments would be sought by either of the parties.
6. In the result, the stay application filed by the applicant is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 08th day of November, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUSHMA CHOWLA)
लेखा सद!य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद!य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
द ल / दनांक Dated : 08th November, 2019.
* Amit Kumar *
Page | 3
आदे श क2 $ त6ल'प अ7े'षत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ0 / The Appellant
2. $1यथ0 / The Respondent
3. आयकर आय9 ु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)
4. म< ु य आयकर आय9 ु त / The Pr. CIT
5. 'वभागीय $ त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, द ल / DR, ITAT, Delhi
6. गाड( फाईल / Guard file.
ु ार/ BY ORDER, आदे शानस स1या'पत $ त //True Copy// द ल Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Page | 4