Are you looking for a legal research tool ?
Get Started
Do check other products like LIBIL, a legal due diligence tool to get a litigation check report and Case Management tool to monitor and collaborate on cases.

Mr. Jairam G. Kimmane, Bengaluru v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bengaluru

Mr. Jairam G. Kimmane, Bengaluru v. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(3), Bengaluru

(Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore)

SA 58/BANG/2020 | 28-02-2020

The captioned stay application has been preferred by the applicant assessee seeking stay of demand amounting to Rs.18,69,577/- relating to assessment year : 2013-14.

2. In support of the petition for stay, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that out of total demand of Rs.37,59,577/- including interest under s.234A, 234B & 234C of the, the assessee had already paid Rs.18,90,000/-. Thus, more than 50% of the total demand including the interest is satisfied in the instant case. The ld. AR further submitted that the assessee has a very strong case on merits as SP No.58(B)/2020 in ITA No.2026(B)/2019 2 well and has a reasonable chance of success in the Tribunal. It was pointed out that the issue involves applicability of section2(14) in the case of transfer of agricultural land and consequent capital gains thereon. It was submitted that no additions towards capital gains were warranted in the facts of the case where the asset sold itself is out of preview of the definition of capital assets. It was also submitted that the matter may be immediately fixed for hearing on merits for disposal.

3. The ld. DR for the revenue on the other hand pointed out that the action of the AO has been confirmed by the CIT(A) and therefore demand outstanding should not be stayed.

4. On careful consideration of rival submissions as well as the material aspects of the case, which are relevant to ascertain the balance of convenience, such as prima facie case of the assessee on merits as argued, the outstanding demand (including interest) already been discharged by paying more than 50% of the demand, we are of the view that mitigating circumstances exists in the present case is for stay of outstanding demand of Rs.18,69,577/-.

5. Having regard to the facts in the above case, we are inclined to entertain the stay application and exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee for stay of recovery of balance demand arising from the assessment framed with reference to assessment year 2013-14 for a period of 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal of the assessee by the Tribunal whichever is earlier.

6. The registry is directed to fix the substantive appeal for assessment year 2013-14 in question on 15-04-2020, as fixed in the open court and informed to the representatives of both sides. No separate notice of hearing would be thus SP No.58(B)/2020 in ITA No.2026(B)/2019 3 required to be served. The parties will file all the requisite documents such as paper book etc. well in advance for expeditious disposal of the appeal.

7. The stay granted is also subject to the condition that the assessee will co- operate in speedy disposal of the appeal and will not seek any adjournment on any ground. The stay granted shall stand vacated together with associated benefit of out of turn hearing of the appeal in the event of failure to comply with the above directions set out. 8 Subject to above, the stay application stands allowed. Sd/- Sd/- (BEENA PILLAI) (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Place: Bengaluru Dated: 28-02-2020 *am Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1.Appellant; 2.Respondent; 3.CIT; 4.CIT(A);

5. DR 6.Guard File By Order Asst.Registrar This Order pronounced in Open Court on 28-02-2020 ITA No.155(B)/2017 4

Advocate List
Bench
  • SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM
  • Per Pradip Kumar Kedia, Accountant Member
Eq Citations
  • LQ/ITAT/2020/4575
Head Note