Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Emerson Process Managment (India) Pvt. ... vs The Dy. Cit, Circle-2(1)(2),, Baroda on 1 April, 2022
THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AHMEDABAD "D" BENCH
(Conducted Through Virtual Court)
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice President
And Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal, Judicial Member
Sl. Stay Petition No. A.Y. Appellant Respondent
No.
1 05/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 2011-12 Emersion Process The DCIT,
1022/Ahd/2016) Management (India) Pvt. Circle-2(1)(2),
Ltd.(Successor-in-interest for Baroda
erstwhile Pentair Valves &
Controls India Pvt. Ltd.),
Mumbai (PAN:
AAACK8809L)
2 06/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 2013-14 -------do------------ -------do------------
2369/Ahd/2017)
3 07/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 2014-15 -------do------------ -------do------------
139/Ahd/2019)
4 08/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 2015-16 -------do------------ -------do------------
70/Ahd/2020)
Assessee by: Shri S.N. Soparkar, Sr. A.R. &
Shri Parin Shah. A.R.
Revenue by: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr. D.R.
Date of hearing : 01-04-2022
Date of pronouncement : 01-04-2022
आदे श/ORDER
PER : SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-
Stay Petition No. 05/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 1022/Ahd/2016) A.Y. 2011- 12 The instant stay application has been filed by the assessee praying for extension of stay of the outstanding balance of Rs. 9,62,08,289/- raised by the Revenue. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee before us submitted that additions are on account of transfer pricing adjustments and the assessee has already paid approximately 50% of the tax demand. The assessee has Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 2 Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT already paid an amount of Rs. 6,31,04,148/- against the notice of demand of Rs. 15,93,12,437/- raised on the assessee and the present stay extension application is in respect of the balance outstanding demand of Rs. 9,62,08,289/-. Further, the ITAT on earlier occasions had granted stay of demand of demand for the captioned year vide order dated 17-12-2-18 and has further granted extension of stay of demand vide orders dated 28-06- 2019, 27-02-2020, 04-03-2020, 18-08-2020, 19-03-2021 and 07-10-2021. However, the order of stay has expired on 07-02-2022 as has been fairly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the stay of demand has been extended since the hearing on merits could not take place, for no default on part of the assessee. He pointed out that the assessee has not sought adjournment on any date of hearing and the delay in hearing taking place has not been occasioned by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted a tabular date-wise chart to support his contention that the assessee has not sought time and therefore the delay on hearing of the case on merits has not been caused by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for stay of demand for 6 months since the matter related to transfer pricing additions pertains to different assessments years and the completion of hearing is likely to take at least 6 months.
2. The ld. D.R. in all fairness has not objected to the plea of practical difficulty in getting all the matters disposed of at an early date.
3. We have heard the parties and have also perused the records available with us. Upon perusal of details of the proceedings pending before us, we Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 3 Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT are of the view that there are no laches on the part of the assessee in getting the matter heard on merits. The Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Honda Motorcycle and Scooter India (P.) Ltd.[2021] 129 taxmann.com 94 (SC)held that where delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee in any manner, Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. The Supreme Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jindal Steel & Power Ltd.133 taxmann.com 214 (SC)[2021] 133 taxmann.com 214 (SC)dismissed SLP against High Court's ruling that where delay in disposal of appeal is not attributable to assessee in any manner, Tribunal can grant extension of stay of demand beyond 365 days in deserving cases. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we think it fit to re-impose stay of recovery of balance demand for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We make it clear that the assessee shall not pray for any unnecessary adjournment at the time of hearing of the matter. The application for extension of stay of demand is, thus allowed on the terms and conditions indicated above.
Stay Petition No. 06/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 2369/Ahd/2017) A.Y. 2013- 14
4. The instant stay application has been filed by the assessee praying for extension of stay of the outstanding balance of Rs. 2,46,02,785/- raised by the Revenue. The assessee has already paid a sum of Rs. 11,66,20,685/- for obtaining stay of demand. The stay of demand was granted to the assessee by ITAT vide order dated 17-12-2-18 and stay of demand was further extended vide orders dated 28-06-2019, 27-02-2020, 04-03-2020, 18-08- Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 4 Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT 2020, 19-03-2021 and 07-10-2021. However, the order of stay has expired on 07-02-2022 as has been fairly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee. Considering that facts for AY 2013-14 are similar to facts for AY 2011-12 and coupled with the fact that assessee has deposited a substantial percentage of the tax demand for the captioned year, we are re-imposing stay of recovery of balance demand for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We make it clear that the assessee shall not pray for any unnecessary adjournment at the time of hearing of the matter. The application for extension of stay of demand is, thus allowed on the terms and conditions indicated above.
Stay Petition No. 07/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 139/Ahd/2019) A.Y. 2014-15
5. The instant stay application has been filed by the assessee praying for extension of stay of the outstanding balance of Rs. 6,84,28,400/- raised by the Revenue. The Co-ordinate Bench on 18-02-2019 upon hearing the rival submissions made by the parties and upon perusal of the materials available on records found a prima facie case made out by the assessee in favour of grant of stay of recovery of demand for a period of six months or disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. In the above order, the ITAT noted that the assessee out of total tax liability of Rs. 17,59,34,333/- already paid Rs. 10,75,05,930/- i.e. 61% of the total tax liability of Rs. 17,59,34,333/-. The stay of demand was further extended vide orders dated 06-02-2020, 18-08- 2020, 19-02-2021 and 31-08-2021. However, the order of stay has expired as has been fairly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the stay of demand has been Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 5 Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT extended since the hearing on merits could not take place, for no default on part of the assessee. He pointed out that the assessee has not sought adjournment on any date of hearing and the delay in hearing taking place has not been occasioned by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also submitted a tabular date-wise chart to support his contention that the assessee has not sought time and therefore the delay on hearing of the case on merits has not been caused by the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee prayed for stay of demand for 6 months since the matter related to transfer pricing additions pertains to different assessments years and the completion of hearing is likely to take at least 6 months. It was further submitted that there are a number of appeals in respect of the same assessee pending before us and it would not be possible to get all the matters disposed of within a short period. In view of the matter, the ld. A.R. prayed for extension of stay for 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. The ld. D.R. in all fairness has not objected to the plea of practical difficulty in getting all the matters disposed of at an early date.
6. We have considered the submissions made by the respective parties. We find that several appeals relating to the same assessee are posted for hearing which according to us may take a considerable time to be finalized by the Tribunal. Therefore, under the facts and circumstances of the case, we re-impose the order for stay of recovery of balance demand for a period of 180 days or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We make it clear that the assessee shall not pray for any unnecessary adjournment at the time of hearing of the matter. The application for extension of stay of demand is, thus allowed on the terms and conditions indicated above.
Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 6Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT Stay Petition No. 08/Ahd/2022 (In ITA No. 70/Ahd/2020) A.Y. 2015-16
7. By and under order dated 06-02-2020, this Tribunal has been pleased to stay the recovery of demand of tax/interest amounting to Rs. 16,64,05,777/- with certain condition for a period of six months or till the disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. Stay of demand was further extended vide orders dated 18-08-2020, 19-02-2021 and 31-08-2021. However, the order of stay has expired as has been fairly submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee. A prayer has been made by the ld. A.R. for extension of stay of demand on the plea as has already been narrated hereinbefore in S.P. No. 07/Ahd/2022 for A.Y. 2014-15. Thus, keeping in view the entire aspect of the matter on the identical issue, we think it fit to re-impose the interim order of stay of demand for a period of 180 days or disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We make it clear that the assessee shall not pray for any unnecessary adjournment at the time of hearing of the matter. The application for extension of stay of demand is, thus allowed on the terms and conditions indicated above.
8. In the combined result, all the four stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 01-04-2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(P.M. JAGTAP) (SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad : Dated 01/04/2022
Stay Petition Nos. 05, 06, 07 & 08/Ahd/2022 Page No. 7
Emeron Process Management (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. Dy. CIT आदे श क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-
1. Assessee
2. Revenue
3. Concerned CIT
4. CIT (A)
5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. Guard file.
By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद