Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
M/S Shailesh Jain Huf, Mumbai vs Ito 19 (3)(3), Mumbai on 14 February, 2020
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "G"
BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, (VP) AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH (JM) S.A. N0.81/M/2020 आयकरअपीलसं /I.T.A. No.6068/Mum/2019 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) M/s. Shailesh Jain HUF बिधम/ ITO 19(3)(3) 2405, Panchtandra Opera Vs. 2nd Floor, Matru Mandir House Mama Parmanand Bldg, Grant Road, Mumbai- Marg Charni Road, Mumbai-
400007.
400004.
स्थायीलेखासं ./जीआइआरसं ./PAN/GIR No. : AAIHS3182H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Naveen Kumar Mishra (AR) Revenue by: Shri Avneesh Tiwari (DR) सुनवाईकीतारीख / Date of Hearing: 14/02/2020 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date of Pronouncement: 14/02/2020 आदे श / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH (JM):
This order shall dispose of the present stay application bearing no. 81/M/2020 moved by the assessee Arising out of ITA. No.6068/M/2019.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee earned the Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) and claim exemption u/s 10(38) of the I. T. Act, 1961. The claim was declined. Thereafter, an appeal was filed before the Hon'ble ITAT by virtue of ITA. No.6068/M/2019 which is pending. It is asserted that the claim of the assessee was duly covered by the number of decisions as mentioned in the application. The assessee has also deposited 20% of the tax demand, therefore, according to the circular of the CBDT, the necessary stay is required to the given in the interest of justice.
3. Notice given.
S. No.81/M/2020 Arising out of ITA. No.6068/M/2019 A.Y.2014-15
4. We have heard the argument advanced by the Ld. Representative of the parties and perused the record. We noticed that the addition has been raised against the assessee by declining his claim of Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) in view of the provisions u/s 10(38) of the I. T. Act. The assessee has deposited 20% of the outstanding demand. Prima facie case of the assessee seems to be covered by the decisions cited in the application. The matter is required to be considered yet on merits. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee. The assessee has some arguable points in his favour on merits. Therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the rest of the demand is liable to be stayed for the period of six months or till the decision of the suits whichever is earlier. We ordered accordingly. The case is fixed on 30.03.2020. Discussed hereinabove shall have no bearing on the merit of the case.
5. In the result, the stay application filed by assessee is hereby allowed accordingly.
Order pronounced in the open court on 14/02/2020 Sd/- Sd/-
(PRAMOD KUMAR) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
मुंबई Mumbai; ददनां कDated :14/02/2020 Vijay Pal Singh/Sr. PS 2 S. No.81/M/2020 Arising out of ITA. No.6068/M/2019 A.Y.2014-15 आदे शकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रे नर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथी/ The Appellant
2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent.
3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील)/ The CIT(A)-
4. आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT
5. दवभागीयप्रदतदनदध,आयकरअपीलीयअदधकरण ,मुं बई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. गार्ड फाईल/ Guard file.
आदे शधिु सधर/ BY ORDER, सत्यादपतप्रदत //True Copy// उि/सहधयकिं जीकधर/(Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकरअिीिीयअनर्करण ,मुं बई / ITAT, Mumbai 3