Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Emerson Process Management(India) ... vs The Acit, Circle-2(1)(2),, Baroda on 6 February, 2020
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD - BENCH 'D'
BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND
Ms MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Stay Petition No.15/Ahd/2020
in
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.139/Ahd/2019
नधारण वष/Asstt. Year: 2014-2015
And
Stay Petition No.14/Ahd/2020
in
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No.70/Ahd/2020
नधारण वष/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016
Emerson Process Management (India) Vs. A.C.I.T.,
Private Limited, Circle-2(1)(2),
(Successor-in-interest for erstwhile Pentair Vadodara.
Valves and controls India Pvt. Ltd.,)
Delphi, B-Wing, 6th Floor, Orchard Avenue,
Hiranandani Business Park, Powai,
Mumbai-400076.
PAN : AAACK8809L
अपीलाथ / (Appellant) यथ / (Respondent)
Assessee by : Shri S.N. Soparkar &
Shri Janmang Mehta, A.Rs
Revenue by : Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT.DR
सुनवाई क तार ख/Date of Hearing : 04/02/2020
घोषणा क तार ख /Date of Pronouncement: 06/02/2020
आदेश /O R D E R
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
First, we take up the stay application No. 15/AHD/2020 in ITA No. 139/AHD/2020 for A.Y. 2014-15.
SP Nos.15 &14/Ahd/2020 In ITA Nos.139 & 70/Ahd/2019 & 2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 2 The assessee by way of this stay application prays for the extension of the stay order dated 18-02-2019 for the stay of recovery of outstanding demand which was already granted by this Tribunal in SA No. 04/AHD/2019 for 180 days.
2. This Tribunal by an order dated 18-02-2019 was pleased to grant an order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand. The order of stay was granted for 180 days or till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier but the same got expired by now.
3. The ld. AR before us submitted that the this Hon'ble Tribunal has already found existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and relative hardship and has thought it fit to grant an order of stay. Accordingly, the ld. AR claimed that the same should be continued in the interest of justice.
3.1 The ld. AR also claimed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the Tribunal is not attributable on the part of the Assessee.
4. On the other hand, the Ld DR opposed the extension of stay order for the recovery of outstanding demand. The ld. DR further claimed that the prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial capacity of the assessee should also be evaluated before granting the extension of stay.
5. We have given a very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that the existence of all conditions for grant of stay has already been considered by this Tribunal and at this stage new conditions cannot be imposed. All the relevant parameters for the stay of recovery of outstanding demand have already been tested by the Tribunal when it originally granted an order of stay on SP Nos.15 &14/Ahd/2020 In ITA Nos.139 & 70/Ahd/2019 & 2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 3 18-02-2019. Moreover, the stay order passed by the Tribunal dated 18-02-2019 was not challenged by the Revenue.
5.1 It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been listed dated 27-02-2020, therefore there is no need to give fresh date of hearing. However, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date of hearing without just cause, otherwise the bench hearing the case can revoke the stay order.
5.2 For the reasons given above, we direct that there shall be an order of stay of recovery of outstanding demand for six months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The fresh stay petition filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed.
6. In the result, SA filed by assessee is allowed in terms of above.
Coming to the stay application No. 14/AHD/2020 in ITA No.70/Ahd/2020 for A.Y. 2015-16.
The assessee in this petition is seeking a stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand of tax/interest amounting to Rs. 16,64,05,777/- only.
7. The ld. AR before us submitted that the addition made in the year under consideration are similar to the additions which were made in the earlier assessment years 2005-06 to the assessment year 2014-15 which are pending for adjudication before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal was pleased in granting the stay on the recovery of the tax demands for the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 by observing that "the assessee has a prima facie arguable case in the appeals"
SP Nos.15 &14/Ahd/2020 In ITA Nos.139 & 70/Ahd/2019 & 2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 4 7.1 The learned AR further submitted that the assessee agreed to pay 20% of such outstanding demand as proposed in the budget 2020.
7.2 In addition to the above, the ld. AR before us further submitted that the assessee has been discharging his tax liabilities despite there is downfall in the turnover and profitability in its business.
8. On the other hand, the Ld DR opposed the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand. The ld. DR further claimed that the prima facie case, balance of convenience and financial capacity of the assessee should also be evaluated before granting the stay.
9. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. We find that the major dispute involved in the present appeal relate to the transfer pricing adjustments which has already been decided substantially in favour of the assessee in the earlier years in ITA No. 2993/AHD/2011 for the AY 2007-08 vide order dated 22-1-2020. Thus the prima facie case and the balance of convenience lie in favour of the assessee. Thus, having regard to the facts of the case as discussed above and the stay order in the earlier years, we are inclined to grant a stay of outstanding demand subject to the deposit of 30% of the outstanding demand as discussed above in two installments. The first installment of 15% shall be deposited on or before 29th February 2020 and the remaining installment of 15% will be deposited on or before 20th March 2020. Accordingly, we direct that the said outstanding demand be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal or for 6 months whichever is earlier. We also direct the registry to fix the appeal of the assessee for hearing out of turn on 27th February 2020 as the cases of the other years are already listed for hearing on this date.
9.1 It is also important to note that the assessee shall not seek any adjournment of the case on the date of hearing and if it does so, the bench hearing the appeal of the assessee will be at liberty to revoke this order granting the stay of recovery of the outstanding demand. Thus, the stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of above.
SP Nos.15 &14/Ahd/2020 In ITA Nos.139 & 70/Ahd/2019 & 2020 A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2015-16 5 In the result, the Stay Petition filed by the assessee is allowed.
10. In the combined results, both the stay petitions of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the Court on 06/02/2020 at Ahmedabad.
-Sd- -Sd- (Ms MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER manish ((True Copy) Ahmedabad; Dated 06/02/2020