CONCUR TECHNOLOGIES (INDIA) PRIVATE LIMITED,BANGALORE V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 2(2)(1), BANGALORE

SA 1/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Concur Technologies (India) Private Limited, which filed a stay petition against an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2021-22. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax had rejected the initial stay application, requiring the assessee to either deposit 50% of the demand or provide a payment plan. The Tribunal considered the arguments and precedents cited, particularly the Delhi High Court judgment in Maruti Suzuki India v. DCIT, which supported the Tribunal's authority to grant a stay under certain conditions. The Tribunal's decision to grant a stay was based on the assessee's compliance with Section 254 of the Income Tax Act, which allows for such a stay if 20% of the demand is paid.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473925 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Maruti Suzuki India v. DCIT (2012) 347 ITR 43
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 43

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. No.1/Bang/2025 [in ITA No.2550/Bang/2024] Assessment year : 2021-22 Concur Technologies (India) Private Limited, No.65/2, Bagmane Laurel, Bangalore North – 560 093. PAN: AAECC 3891N Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(2)(1), Bangalore. APPLICANT RESPONDENT Applicant by : Shri Chavali Naryan, CA Respondent by : Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 17.02.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2025 O R D E R Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This stay petition is filed by of the assessee for stay of the outstanding demand of Rs.3,67,44,680 for the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The ld. AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee filed stay application before the AO which was rejected and notice was served vide letter dated 17.12.2024 to deposit 50% of the demand amount or SP No.1/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 3 furnish payment plan for 50% of demand to consider stay for the balance demand, copy of which is placed at Attachment 3 to the stay petition. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee has a prima facie case in favour of the assessee and the returned income of the assessee will be accepted. He further submitted that the AO has made unnecessary additions and raised huge demand. He submitted that the appeal was listed for hearing on 10.2.2025. He relied on the Hon’ble Delhi High Court judgment in the case of Maruti Suzuki India v. DCIT (2012) 347 ITR 43 and submitted that the Tribunal has power to grant stay of the demand if the assessee complies the provisions of section 254 of the Act. 3. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the order of the AO and submitted that the assessee is required to pay the balance demand as per demand issued as per section 156 of the Act. The AO has rightly rejected the stay as the assessee has not paid the disputed demand. 4. Considering the rival submissions, we note that the assessee filed stay petition before the AO which was rejected by the AO on 17.12.2024 observing that the assessee has to furnish payment plan for payment of 50% of the demand or 50% demand may be complied. As per section 254 of the Act, the ITAT has power to grant stay if the assessee complies with payment of 20% of the demand. We direct the assessee to pay 20% of the demand in two instalments before 20.03.2025 and furnish proof of payment. On this condition, we grant stay against the balance outstanding demand for a period of 6 months SP No.1/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 3 from the date of this order, or till the appeal is disposed, whichever is earlier. The assessee is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournment for early disposal of the case. If the assessee seeks adjournment on the date of hearing without sufficient reason, the stay granted shall be automatically vacated. 5. In the result, the stay petition of the assessee is allowed as above. Pronounced in the open court on this 17th day of March, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- ( KESHAV DUBEY ) ( LAXMI PRASAD SAHU ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 17th 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. "