Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Shri. Palimar Gopal Shetty, Mumbai vs Ito 26 (2)(4), Mumbai on 21 February, 2020
1
SA 70/Mum/2020
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "C", MUMBAI
Before Shri Shamim Yahya (A.M.) & Shri Pawan Singh (JM)
S.A. 70/Mum/2020
(Arising out of ITA No. 7335/Mum/2019)
(Assessment year : 21011-12)
Shri Palimar Gopal Shetty vs ITO-26(2)(4), Mumbai
D-204, Om Trimurti Towers
Om Trimurti Society,
Trombay Road, Chunabhatti
Sion, Mumbai 400 022
PAN : CSKPS7867R
APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT
Appellant by Shri Arjun Jhanwar AR
Respondent by Shri Michael Jerald DR
Date of hearing 21-02-2020
Date of pronouncement 21-02-2020
ORDER
Per Pawan Singh, JM :
This stay petition is filed by assessee for seeking the stay of outstanding demand of Rs.4,36,570.
2. The Ld.AR of the assessee submits that out of total tax demand of Rs.5,51,570, the assessee has already paid Rs.1,15,000. The assessee is a senior citizen and retired central government employee. In the assessment, the addition was made on account of cash deposit. The assessee sold jewellery and silver utensil at his hometown Udupi. Due to old age and 2 SA 70/Mum/2020 partial memory loss, the assessee could not re-concile the documents regarding the sales of jewellery. The assessing officer is pressing hard for recovery and the bank accounts of the asssessee are attached. The assessee do not have sufficient means to pay the outstanding demand. The Ld.AR further submits that assessee has good case on merit and is likely to succeed. The assessee has already filed appeal before the Tribunal on 29-11-2019 and the hearing of appeal has not yet been fixed. The Ld.AR prayed for stay of outstanding demand and hearing of appeal on out of turn basis.
3. On the other hand, the Ld.DR for the revenue submits that the assessee has deposited huge cash in his bank account. Therefore, the assessee may be directed to pay 50% of the demand. It was further submitted that the assessee deposited Rs.20 lakhs in savings bank account in Karnataka and Term Deposit in Karnataka Bank of more than Rs.1 crore.
4. We have considered the submission of both the parties and perused the record. We find that the AO while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs.9,69,565 only and no such addition on Term Deposit was made by AO. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the old age of assessee, a senior citizen, aged 83, the appeal is fixed for hearing on out of turn basis on 16-03-2020. Issuance of separate notice of hearing is dispensed with as the date of hearing was 3 SA 70/Mum/2020 communicated to the parties while hearing the stay petition. In the meantime, the revenue is directed not to take coercive action against the assessee for recovery till 16-03-2020.
5. In the result, stay application is allowed in the above terms.
Order pronounced in the open court on 21-02-2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Shamim Yahya) (Pawan Singh)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER
Mumbai, Dt : 21st February, 2020
Pk/-
Copy to :
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT(A)
4. CIT
5. DR
/True copy/ By order
Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai