Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi
Maruti Nandan Sah, Nainital vs Acit, Circle- 3, Nainital 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. 442/DEL/2018
A/o ITA No. 3046/DEL/2018
[Assessment Year: 2014-15]
Maruti Nandan Sah Vs. The A.C.I.T.
86, Ramsay Road Circle - 3
Tallital, Nainital Nainital
PAN : BBXPS 5336 N
[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. 3046/DEL/2018 for Assessment Year 2014-15, seeking stay of outstanding demand of Rs. 35.69 lakhs, as the revenue is pressing hard for recovery of the same and has also taken coercive steps in the past.
2
2. The ld. AR vehemently contended that the assessee is facing acute financial crunch having loan of Rs. 3.82 crores against mortgage of properties/assets and has given details of the same in Annexure. The ld. AR further submitted that due to financial crisis the assessee is unable to pay the entire demand at once and hence prayed that monthly instalments may be granted to pay the same.
3. After hearing both the sides, it was noticed that the assessee has paid around Rs. 6.30 lakhs out of the total demand of Rs. 41.99 lakhs as per the direction of the ld. CIT(A). 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 lik ely 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.
4. On the other hand, the ld. Sr. DR 3 has contested this application and has further st ated 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 stay is made out in favour of the applicant. The assessee has already deposited Rs. 6.30 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, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would be met if the assessee is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs on or before 19.07.2018 and fix ing the appeal for hearing on such date. This date was taken note of by both the parties in the open court and both parties agreed to argue the appeal on that date. Hence no separate notice need be issued.
4
6. As a result we grant stay against the total o utstanding demand as on today in favour of the applicant -assessee and direct the Registry to fix the appeal of the assessee out of turn for hearing on 19.07.2018. The parties especially the assessee is directed not to seek adjournment on that date on flimsy grounds, otherwise the stay granted would stand automatically vacated.
7. In the result, the stay application of the assessee in SA No. 442/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/
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A)
5. DR
Asst. Registrar,
ITAT, New Delhi