Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Mr. Sandeep Taneja, Delhi vs Ito, New Delhi on 15 June, 2018
1
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI 'FRIDAY-E' BENCH,
NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND
SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SA NO. 357/DEL/2018
A/o ITA No. 11/DEL/2017
[Assessment Year: 2013-14]
Shri Sandeep Taneja Vs. The I.T.O
473, DPS Apartments, Ward 45(5)
Plot No. 16, Sector - 4 New Delhi
PAN : ABDPT 5922 C
[Appellant] [Respondent]
Date of Hearing : 15.06.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 15.06.2018
Assessee by : Shri Pavan Kumar Nath, CA
Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta Sr. DR
ORDER
PER K.N CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER,
This Stay Application has been filed by the appellant-assessee in connection with its appeal in ITA No. 11/DEL/2017 for Assessment Year 2013-14, seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 36.68 lakhs, as the revenue is pressing hard for recovery of the same. 2
2. The ld. AR vehemently contended that t he assessee is facing acute financial crisis and finding it hard to deposit the balance disputed demand and penalty. The ld. AR further submitted that being a stock broker, he is suffering financial crisis due to monthly instalments of outstanding loan, maintenance and medical expenses of senior citizen parents, requirement of liquid funds for assessee's share trading business, college fees of children and house hold expenses.
3. After hearing both the sides, it was noticed that th e assessee has paid around Rs. 14.11 lakhs out of the total demand. The ld. A.R. has pleaded that the business of the assessee would suffer irreparably in case absolute stay against the demand raised is not granted as further coercive steps by the department are likely to be taken. It was stated that the major portion of the total demand has already been paid and that the assessee has a very good chance of success in its appeal.
3
4. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR has contested this application and has further stated that absolute stay should not be granted and the assessee must be directed to deposit some more tax in case stay is granted.
5. After considering the rival submissions, we are of the considered opinion that a prima -facie case for grant of s tay is made out in favour of the applicant. The assessee has already deposited Rs. 14.11 lakhs out of the total demand and, therefore, balance of convenience is also in its favour. In case stay against the recovery of demand is not granted, the assessee is likely to suffer irreparable loss as well. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, and in the interest of justice and fair play, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee has got a good prima facie case, therefore, we order st ayal of the outstanding demand. Accordingly, we grant stay of the remaining outstanding tax demand from today, i.e. the date of hearing 15.06.2018 for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
4
6. As a result we grant stay against the total outstanding demand as on today in favour of the applicant -assessee. We direct the Registry to fix the appeal in ITA No. 11/DEL/2017, out of turn, for hearing on 19.07.2018. Both the parties were conveyed of the above directions in th e open court. We also direct the assessee/ld. A.R. that the assessee shall not take adjournment on that date i.e. 19.0 7.2018 on flimsy ground, otherwise, the stay granted shall stand vacated. Since both the parties have noted the date of hearing in the open court, notice need not be sent to them.
7. In the result, the stay application of the assessee in SA No. 357/DEL/2018 is allowed.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.06.2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
[N.K. BILLAIYA] [K.N. CHARY]
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 15th June, 2018
VL/
5
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar,
ITAT, New Delhi