ASIAN FAB TEC LIMITED,BENGALURU V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

SA 13/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves M/s. Asian Fab Tech Ltd., which filed stay petitions against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru, seeking a stay on the outstanding tax demands for the assessment years 2013-14, 2015-16, and 2016-17. The total demands were significantly high, with the assessee arguing that payments made, including TDS credits and other payments, exceeded 20% of the demands, thus qualifying for a stay under section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Departmental Representative did not dispute the payments but opposed the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 474055 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: TATA KRISHNA
• Keywords: TDS
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER SA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2025 [in ITA Nos.373 to 375/Bang/2025] Assessment years : 2013-14, 2015-16 & 2016-17 M/s. Asian Fab Tech Ltd., No.15, Peenya Industrial Area, 2nd Stage, Bengaluru – 560 058. PAN: AADCA 7116R Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(3), Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Tata Krishna, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Prithviraj K., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 07.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member The assessee has filed the present stay petitions under the proviso to section 254(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, seeking stay of outstanding demand for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. The demand raised by the Revenue for AYs 2013-14, 2015-16 and 2016-17 amounts to Rs. 36,77,423.00, 19,45,48,210/- and Rs. SA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 28,85,09,699/- respectively. The assessee submits that the TDS credit for the AY 2013-14 amounting to Rs. 22,04,105.00, as evident from page 22 of the ld. CIT-A order, can be adjusted against the outstanding demand for the AY 2013-14 which will constitute the payment more than 20% of the total outstanding demand for the AY 2013-14. 3. Likewise, the assessee submits that it has made payment of ₹ 13,96,64,245 against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2015-16 and furthermore the amount of TDS of ₹ 1,09,00,219 as evident from page 26 of the learned CIT-Appeal order can be adjusted against the outstanding demand for the assessment 2015-16. As per the assessee the aggregate payment against the outstanding demand exceeds 20% of the total outstanding demand for the assessment year 2015-16. 4. Similarly, the assessee submits that it has made payment of ₹ 12,56,39,000 against the outstanding demand for the assessment year 2016-17 and furthermore the amount seized of ₹ 55,00,000.00 as evident from page 25 of the learned CIT-Appeal order can be adjusted against the outstanding demand for the assessment 2016-17. As per the assessee the aggregate payment against the outstanding demand exceeds 20% of the total outstanding demand for the assessment year 2016-17. 5. In view of above, the ld. AR contended that, in light of the payments already made exceeding the stipulated 20% threshold, the balance demand should be stayed until the disposal of the appeal. In SA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 view of the above the ld. AR appearing for the assessee prayed for the grant of stay till the disposal of the appeal otherwise, it will cause genuine hardship if the coercive actions are taken for the recovery of the outstanding demand from the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative opposed the stay petition but did not dispute the fact that the assessee has already deposited significantly more than 20% of the outstanding demand. 7. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The parameters to be taken into account in considering the grant of stay of disputed demand are well settled – the existence of a prima facie case, financial stringency and the balance of ‘Financial stringency’ would include within its ambit the question of ‘irreparable injury’ and ‘undue hardship’ as well and arrive at the balance of convenience in the matter. From the preceding discussion, we note that the assessee has already paid significant amount against the outstanding demand for the different AYs. Accordingly, we are of the view that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the assessee. Therefore, we exercise our discretion in favour of the assessee for the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand. Accordingly, we direct that the balance outstanding demand be kept in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal or for a period of 6 months whichever is earlier. All the appeals of the assessee are directed to be fixed for hearing on SA Nos.13 to 15/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 6th May 2025 out of the turn. As the date of hearing has been pronounced in the open court, there is no need to issue separate notices to either of the parties intimating the date of hearing. 8. 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 stay of recovery of the outstanding demand. Thus, the stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed in above terms. 9. In the result, all the stay petitions filed by the assessee are allowed. Pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 7th March, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "