Challani Ranka Jewellery, Chennai v. Dcit Central Circle 3(4), Chennai

This stay petition is filed by the petitioner seeking grant of stay from recovery of outstanding demand of .4,34,51,340/- towards tax and interest till the final disposal of the appeal of the petitioner for the assessment year 2012-13.

2. The ld. Counsel for the petitioner, by relying on the stay petition, submitted that there was a search and seizure operation under section S.P. No.349/M/17 2 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short] undertaken in Challani group of companies on 19.04.2012. Proceedings under section 153A of thewere initiated and notice under section 153A of thedated

26.04.2013 was issued to the petitioner. In response, the petitioner filed a letter dated 07.06.2013 informing that a return has been e-filed on 06.06.2013 and the same may be treated as the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the. In the return, the petitioner admitted income of .1,99,40,080/-. Notice under section 143(2) of thewas duly served on the assessee within the limitation period. After considering the submissions and detailed furnished by the assessee, the assessment under section 153A r.w. section 143(3) of thewas completed by assessing total income of the assessee at .10,84,16,440/- after making various additions. It was the further submission of the ld. Counsel that on appeal, while confirming the amount offered for under-valuation of stock, the ld. CIT(A) enhanced the gross profit of unaccounted sales. Subsequently, giving effect to the appellate order, vide order dated 14.12.2017, the Assessing Officer revised the income of the assessee at . 11,72,49,059/- and the demand of tax and interest was also revised to .4,34,51,340/-. The ld. S.P. No.349/M/17 3 Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner has good case before the Tribunal.

3. Before us, it was the submission of the ld. Counsel that being a high pitched demand has been raised and if enforced would cause irreparable loss to the petitioner in the light of financial difficulties being faced by the assessee, and moreover, there is prima facie case in appeal, the ld. Counsel prayed that the stay may be granted till the final disposal of the appeal.

4. On the other hand, the ld. DR has objected to grant the stay.

5. We have heard both sides and perused the records. We have carefully considered the entire facts of the case and arguments of the ld. Counsel for the petitioner. We have also considered the submissions of the ld. Counsel that there is prima facie cause to grant stay and also submitted that if the demand is enforced and recovered would cause heavy loss and damage. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, we direct the petitioner to pay .50,00,000/- [Rupees fifty lakhs only] of outstanding demand in three instalments i.e., .10,00,000/- [Rupees ten lakhs only] by 31.01.2018, .20,00,000/- [Rupees twenty lakhs only] by 15.02.2018 S.P. No.349/M/17 4 and .20,00,000/- [Rupees twenty lakhs only] by 15.03.2018 and produce receipt on record. With the above condition, the stay of outstanding demand is granted upto six months or till disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We also directed that the petitioner should not seek adjournment other than for just cause. With the above, stay petition filed by the petitioner is disposed off. Order pronounced in the open Court on the 19 th January, 2018 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (DUVVURU RL REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 19.01.2018 Vm/- &G6  $ 2 *  G 7$/Copy to: 1. *@2>% /Appellant, 2. /% / Respondent, 3. /0 /A $ (*@2 )/CIT(A), 4. /0 /A $/CIT,

5. 5->@/ $ ( /DR & 6. >! +>2/GF.