Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private ... vs Dcit-Cc-7(2)(1), Mumbai on 21 February, 2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "J", MUMBAI
BEORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
S.A. NO.93/MUM/2020
(Arising out of ITA No.6670/Mum/2018,A.Y : 2014-15)
S.A. NO.94/MUM/2020
(Arising out of ITA No.5766/Mum/2019,A.Y : 2015-16)
Marsh India Insurance Brokers Private Limtied,
1201-02, Tower No.2, One Indiabulls Centre,
Jupiter Mills Compound,
Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Rd.(West)
Mumbai - 400 013.
PAN:AADCM 4220G ...... Applicant
Vs.
The ACIT 7(2)(1)
Mumbai. .... Respondent
Applicant by : Shri Madhur Agarwal
Respondent by : Shri Uodal Raj Singh
Date of hearing : 21/02/2020
Date of pronouncement : 21/02/2020
ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, J.M:
S.A. NO.93/MUM/2020 This application has been filed by the assessee seeking stay of demand for assessment year 2014-15.
2. Shri Madhur Agarwal, appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that total demand in the impugned assessment year is Rs.11,32,18,310/-. The 2 S.A. NO.93 & 94/MUM/2020 assessee has already paid Rs.3.00 crores. Further, the assessee has offered to Department to adjust the refund of Rs.4,68,53,133/- preceding assessment year against the demand in the impugned assessment year. Thus, with the payments already made and adjustment of refund approximately 68% of the total demand would be met. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee pointed that the assessee has filed an application for Advance Pricing Agreement ( in short 'APA') on 30/03/2015. The assessment year under appeal would be covered by APA. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee further contended that the assessee has prima facie good case in its favour as the issue raised in appeal has been decided by Hon'ble High Court and various Benches of the Tribunal in favour of the assessee.
3. Shri Uodal Raj Singh, representing the Department vehemently opposed the stay application and prayed that the assessee should be asked to pay some more amount towards outstanding demand.
4. Both sides heard. After examining the facts of the case, prima facie we are of the view that the outstanding demand in the impugned assessment year deserves to be stayed. The substantial amount of demand has either been paid by the assessee or adjusted against refund of the earlier assessment years. Thus, in view of the fact that almost 68% of the total demand has been recovered by the Department, recovery of balance amount is stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier, subject to the conditions: that the assessee shall not seek frivolous adjournments. If the assessee desires to file paper book, then the same should be filed in accordance with ITAT Rules before the date of hearing. In case of breach of the condition mentioned above, the stay granted shall 3 S.A. NO.93 & 94/MUM/2020 automatically get vacated. The appeal is already listed for hearing on 13/04/2020.
5. The stay application is allowed in the terms aforesaid.
S.A.NO.94/MUM/2020:
6. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the the total outstanding demand including interest in the impugned assessment year is Rs.16,15,00,000/-. The assessee has aleady paid Rs.2.00 crores. In order to substantiate the payment of amount the assessee has filed copy of mail received from HSBC Advising Service. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that the assessment year 2015-16 would also be covered by APA application filed by the assessee. The ld.Authorized Representative of the assessee , further pointed that issue involved in the appeal for assessment year 2015-16 is identical to the one raised in the assessment year 2014-15.
7. The ld.Departmental Representative vehemently opposed the stay application and prayed that the assessee should be directed to pay at lease 50% of the total demand.
8. Both sides heard. After examining the facts of the case, prima facie we are of the view that the outstanding demand in the impugned assessment year deserves to be stayed. Therefore, the recovery of outstanding demand is stayed for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier, subject to following conditions:
4S.A. NO.93 & 94/MUM/2020 (1) The assessee shall pay an amount of Rs.1.00 crore in two equal instalments:-
- Rs.50.00 lacs to be paid on or before 15/03/2020, and
- Rs.50.00 lcas to be paid on or before 31/03/2020 (2) The assessee shall furnish proof of deposit of the aforesaid amounts to the Registry within 10 days from the date of such deposit and shall also furnish copy of the same to the Office of D.R. (3) The assessee shall not seek frivolous adjournments. If assessee desires to file paper book, then the same should be filed in accordance with ITAT Rules before the date of hearing.
(4) In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, the stay granted shall automatically get vacated and the assessee shall also lose the benefit of early hearing of the appeal.
9. The appeal of the assessee shall be listed for hearing on 13/04/2020. No separate notice of hearing of the appeal shall be issued as date of hearing of the appeal has been informed to both sides present in the court at the time of disposal of the stay application.
10. In the result, the stay application is allowed in the terms aforesaid.
Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Friday, the 21st day of February , 2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(RIFAUR RAHMAN) (VIKAS AWASTHY)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Dated 21/02/2020
Vm, Sr. PS(O/S)
5
S.A. NO.93 & 94/MUM/2020
Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. The Appellant ,
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT(A)-
4. CIT
5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
6. Guard file.
BY ORDER,
//True Copy//
(Dy./Asstt. Registrar)
ITAT, Mumbai