Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM: These stay petitions are filed by the assessee seeking stay of the outstanding demand by the Revenue for the assessment years 2011-12 to 2013-14 & 2015-16 as detailed herein below:- Assessment year Total Demand Rs. Already Paid Rs. Outstanding Demand Rs. 2011-12 3,80,00,000 1,16,00,000 2,64,00,000 2012-13 4,32,66,372 2,63,29,635 1,80,50,550 2013-14 12,87,29,330 8,38,51,157 4,68,19,970 2015-16 14,64,374 6,88,371 7,76,003 2 S.P. Nos.118 to 121/Chny/2019

2. At the outset the Ld.AR submitted before us that for the assessment year 2011-12, the Ld.AO apart from making additions in the hands of the assessee also invoked and levied penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the for Rs.3,80,00,000/-, which was subsequently confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). Subsequently the bank accounts of the assessee were also attached and the assessee is put to irreparable loss and hardship, as the operation of the various educational institutions run by the assessee are abruptly interrupted due to non- payment of salary to staff and professors. It was therefore submitted that thousands of students studying in the educational institutions run by the assessee are adversely affected. The Ld.AR also pleaded that the assessee has a prima-facie case on merits and also paid substantial portion of the penalty levied and has no further liquid resources to pay the outstanding demand of the Revenue. It was therefore pleaded that unconditional stay from recovering the outstanding demand by the Revenue for Rs.2,64,00,000/- may be granted.

3. The Ld.AR further pleaded that for the assessment years 2012- 13, 2013-14 & 2015-16, also the assessee has prima-facie case in its favour on merits with respect to the additions made towards3 S.P. Nos.118 to 121/Chny/2019 anonymous donations by the Ld.AO vide his order U/s.115BBC of the, because the donations were received by Demand Drafts and the identities of the donors were furnished at the time of the search before the Ld.Revenue Authorities. It was further submitted that the assessee had paid substantial portion of the demand and the assessee do not have liquid resources to pay any further amount in respect of the outstanding demand. It was therefore pleaded that unconditional stay may be granted to the assessee from the recovery of the outstanding demand by the Revenue for the assessment years 2012-13, 2013-14 & 2015-16. The Ld.AR also pleaded that the bank accounts of the assessee which was attached by the Ld.Revenue Authorities may be lifted. The Ld.AR further pleaded for early hearing of the appeals.

4. The Ld.DR on the other hand vehemently opposed to the submission of the Ld.AR and pleaded that stay may not be granted to the assessee because neither the assessee have any prima-facie case in favour of it nor the assessee has established its financial crunch. The Ld.DR further pleaded that for the assessment year 2011- 12, the case of the assessee was a fit case to levy penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the.4 S.P. Nos.118 to 121/Chny/2019

5. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. On perusing the assessment order, we find that the Ld.AO has made addition towards the anonymous donations received by the assessee for both the assessment years with elaborate finding. The Ld.AR also did not produce any materials before us to substantiate the claim of the assessee that the assessee has prima-facie case in its favour. Further the assessee being an educational trust running educational institutions, there is every possibility for extracting donations from the students which is against the basic spirit of charity. It is pertinent to mention that the Honble higher judiciaries have come heavily on the assessees running charitable institutions who were extorting money from the gullible in the name of education. Further the assessee has also not furnished its statement of affairs to establish that it has financial crunch. For the assessment year 2011-12 also, the Ld.AR has not brought out any materials to suggest that the case of the assessee is not a fit case for levy of penalty U/s.271(1)(c) of the. In this situation, we do not find any justification in the arguments advanced by the Ld.AR for granting stay to the assessee from recovery of the outstanding demand by the Revenue. Hence in the case of the assessee, we hereby restrain from granting stay of recovering the outstanding demand by the Revenue5 S.P. Nos.118 to 121/Chny/2019 for all the relevant assessment years in appeal before us. However in the interest of justice, we hereby grant early hearing to the assessee and post the appeals for hearing on 23.04.2019. Since the date of hearing is pronounced in the open court, notice need not be issued.

6. In the result the stay petitions of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 5 th April, 2019 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- G( /Chennai, &(> /Dated 5 th April, 2019 RSR &G6 @$2* G7$ /Copy to:

1. >% /Petitioner 2. %/Respondent 3./0 /A(*@2)/CIT(A) 4. /0 /A/CIT 5.5->@/ $( /DR 6.>! +>2 /GF (...)(N.R.S. Ganesan) /Judicial Member (.)(A. Mohan Alankamony) /Accountant Member