Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chandigarh
Eqbal Inn & Hotels Ltd., Patiala vs Assessee on 26 December, 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIG ARH BENCH 'B', CHANDIG ARH
BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH S AINI, JM AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, A.M
S. As No. 19,20,21 & 22/Chd/2013
Arising out of ITAs No. 876,877,878 & 879/Chd/20013
Assessment Year : 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2007-08
Eqbal Inn & Hotels Ltd. Vs. J.C.I.T. Patiala Range
Dhobi Ghat Patiala
Patiala
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Tej Mohan Singh
Respondent by: Shri Akhilesh Gupta
Date of hearing 13.9.2013
Date of Pronouncement 13.9.2013
O R D E R
PER T.R.SOOD, A.M
Through these Stay applications the assessee has sought stay of demand as well as early hearing of the appeal.
2. The ld. counsel of the assessee referred to the Stay application and pointed out that the demand has arisen because of the penalty imposed u/s 271D of the Act. The assessee-company had received certain amounts in cash towards share application and therefore, penalty was levied by the Department. He made detailed submissions to show that the assessee has good prima facie case. He also referred to the various documents in the paper book and pointed out that assessee's Hotel building has been attached by the Department. Even the bank accounts and credit cards belonging to the M.D of the company has been attached. He submitted that the Department had issued even arrest warrant against the M.D. He also pointed out that out of total demand in all years of Rs. 2,07,47,640/- a sum of Rs. 33 Lakhs has been paid by the assessee in various installments. He 2 submitted that assessee's account has already been attached and he filed a certificate of the bank which show debit balance of Rs. 50,61,338/- and therefore, the assessee was not in a position to pay any further amount. He prayed that the demand be stayed and the Department be directed not to take any coercive steps. However, he admitted that appeal has already been fixed for hearing on 23.10.2013.
3 On the other hand, the ld. DR for the revenue submitted that the assessee agreed before the revenue that he would pay whole of the demand in five equal installments starting from 28.2.2013 and ending on 28.6.2013. In this regard he referred to letter written by C.C.I.T. showing the agreement. He opposed other submissions of the ld. counsel of the assessee.
4 In the rejoinder the ld. counsel of the assessee submitted that no doubt originally the assessee had agreed to pay the demand in five equal installments but that was under pressure and very next day the assessee has written a letter to the C.C.I.T. that it will not be able to pay the demand.
5 After considering the rival submissions we find that the demand has arisen on account of levy of penalty u/s 271D. We are of the opinion that the assessee has a good prima facie case for grant of stay and balance of convenience is also in favour of the assessee because the Revenue has already attached assessee's Hotel building which is clear from the order dated 26.12.2012. Following paragraphs will make the issue clear:
"It is ordered that you are hereby prohibited and restrained until the further order of the undersigned from transferring or charging the under mentioned property which is included in the property of the defaulter by virtue of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of Section 222 of the Income-tax Act in any way and that all persons be, and that they are hereby prohibited from taking any benefit under such transfer or charge."
Further the bank account of the assessee has been attached which is clear from the certificate issue by Punjab & Sind Bank, 3 Rajbaha Road, Patiala. The certificate clearly states that the account has been attached and there was a debit balance of Rs. 51,61,348/-. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is a fit case for stay of demand subject to payment of Rs. 10 lakhs. The amount of Rs. 10 lakhs shall be payable in two equal installments of Rs. 5 lakhs each. First installment shall be paid on or before 30.9.2013 and second installment should be paid before the date of hearing i.e. 23.10.2013. Since the appeal is fixed on 23.10.2013 there is no need to grant any early hearing. However, the Department is restrained from taking any further coercive steps including the arrest of the M.D. 6 This order shall remain in force for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The assessee is cautioned not to take any un- necessary adjournment otherwise the Stay shall vacate automatically.
7 In the result, Stay applications of the assessee are partly allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 13.9.2013 Sd/- Sd/-
(BHAVNESH S AINI) (T.R. SOOD)
JUDICI AL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated : 13 .9.2013
SURESH
Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT/The CIT(A)/The DR