BINNY BANSAL,SINGAPORE V. DCIT,(IT) CIRCLE-1(1), BANGALORE

SA 16/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Binny Bansal, the appellant, who filed a stay application against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Bangalore, concerning an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2020-21. The Tribunal had previously granted a stay on the recovery of this demand, which was set to expire. The appellant sought an extension of this stay, arguing that the conditions for a stay were still met, including the payment of 20% of the demand and the lack of delay in the Tribunal's proceedings attributable to the appellant. The respondent did not contest the arguments presented by the appellant's representative. The Tribunal, considering the circumstances and the previous rulings, decided to extend the stay.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 25270 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND KAMATH; ASG
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER SA No.16/Bang/2025 [in IT(IT)A No.571/Bang/2023] Assessment year : 2020-21 Binny Bansal, 11, Nathan Road, # 24-02, Singapore – 0248732. PAN: AKEPB 4202D Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation), Circle 1(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Dilip, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Arvind Kamath, ASG Date of hearing : 07.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 07.03.2025 O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member The assessee by way of this stay application prays for the extension of the stay order which was previously granted vide order dated 02-09-2024 for the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand in SA No. 16/Bang/2025 for 180 days. 2. This Tribunal, by an order dated 1-03-2024, was pleased to grant the stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for captioned SA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 assessment year. The order of stay was granted for 180 days or till disposal of the appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Such stay order was further extended for 180 days by the ITAT vide order dated 2-09-2024. 3. The ld. AR before us submitted that this Tribunal has already found the existence of a prima facie case, balance of convenience and relative hardship and has thought it fit to grant an order of stay. Accordingly, the ld. AR claimed that the same should be continued in the interest of justice. 3.1 The ld. AR has also submitted that the assessee has already paid the significant amount of demand involved in the appeal which constitutes 20% of the outstanding demand. The ld. AR also claimed that the delay in not disposing of the appeal by the Tribunal is not attributable on the part of the Assessee. 4. On the other hand, the Ld. DR before us could not controvert the arguments advanced by the ld. AR of the assessee. 5. We have given very careful consideration to the rival submissions. We are of the view that the existence of all conditions for the grant of stay has already been considered by this Tribunal and at this stage new conditions cannot be imposed. All the relevant parameters for the stay of recovery of outstanding demand have already been tested by the Tribunal when it originally granted an order of stay on an earlier occasion. Moreover, the stay order passed by the SA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 Tribunal was not challenged by the Revenue. It is worth noting that the assessee has already paid nearly 20% of the outstanding demand in the captioned year as evident from the details available on record. 5.1 It is also pertinent to note that the case for hearing has already been listed i.e. 26-03-2025. Accordingly, there is no need to give a fresh date of the hearing. However, the assessee shall not seek any adjournment on the date of the hearing without just cause, otherwise the Bench hearing the case shall be at liberty to revoke the stay order. 5.2 For the reasons given above, we direct that there shall be an extension of stay on the recovery of outstanding demand for 6 months or till the disposal of the appeal whichever is earlier. The fresh stay petition filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed. 6. In the result, the Stay Application filed by assessee is allowed in the above terms. Pronounced in the open court on this 07th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( SOUNDARARAJAN K. ) ( WASEEM AHMED ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 07th March, 2025. /Desai S Murthy / SA No.16/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. "