Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore

Aar Tech Solonics Limited, Bhopal vs Assessee on 25 May, 2012

                              1


     IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              INDORE BENCH, INDORE
 BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                     And
    SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

             Stay Application No. 34/Ind/2012
           (Arising out of ITA No. 294/Ind/2011)
                        A.Y. 2008-09

M/s. Aartech Solonics Ltd., Bhopal
PAN -AACCA 5369 B                  ::    Applicant

Vs

ACIT-1(2), Bhopal                   ::   Respondent


Appellant by     Shri Sumit Nema, Advocate
Respondent by    Shri Darshan Singh, CIT/DR
Date of hearing          25.5.2012
Date of pronouncement    25.5.2012


                       O R D E R
PER JOGINDER SINGH , judicial member

This is an application by the assessee for stay of the outstanding demand of Rs.38,15,493/- out of the total demand of Rs.1,08,75,765/-.

2

2. During hearing of this application, the learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Sumit Nema, who contended that out of the total demand of Rs.1,08,75,765/-, the assessee has already paid Rs. 68,13,218/- by submitting that about 64% of the total demand has already been paid by the assessee by further pointing out that out of the remaining outstanding demand of Rs.38,15,493/-, the interest portion is to the tune of Rs.26 lakhs, therefore, it was submitted that the remaining outstanding demand may be stayed till the disposal of the appeal. Plea was also raised that even on merit, the assessee is having a good case in its favour. However, the ld. CIT/DR pointed out that for earlier AY, the Tribunal decided the issue against the assessee. In reply, the ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that on earlier occasion, the case could not be properly argued before the Bench, therefore, the earlier decision may not be the basis for denying the stay.

3

3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on file. Under the facts narrated in the stay application, the assertion made by the learned respective counsel and without going into the merits of the case, we are of the view that the balance of convenience is in favour of the assessee especially when about 64% of the total demand has already been paid by the assessee and even out of the outstanding demand of Rs.38,15,493/-, the interest portion is to the tune of Rs.26 lakhs, therefore, we are passing the following order :-

(a) Since the assessee has already deposited about 64% of the total demand, therefore, the remaining outstanding demand of Rs.38,15,493/- is stayed for six months or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier.
(b) Since the appeal of the assessee is already fixed for today and due to paucity of time was adjourned to 29.5.2012, no separate notice of hearing will be sent to either party.
(c) The Assessing Officer is directed not to take any coercive steps against the assessee till the disposal of the appeal or six months whichever is earlier. .
4
(d) The assessee is directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment without any cogent reason and shall cooperate in early disposal of the appeal.

With the above directions, this stay application stands allowed.

This order was pronounced in the open in the presence of learned representatives from both the sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 25.5.2012.

              sd                            sd

  (R.C.SHARMA)                        (JOGINDER SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                    JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 25.5.2012

Copy to: Appellant, Respondent, CIT, CIT(A), DR, Guard File !vys!