ERICSSON AB,STOCKHOLM, SWEDEN V. ACIT (INT. TAX), CIRCLE 1(2)(2), NEW DELHI, DELHI

SA 227/DEL/2025

AI Insights

Ericsson AB filed a stay application (SA No. 227/Del/2025) seeking an extension on the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs. 270,19,64,220/- for the Assessment Year 2021-22. The Tribunal had previously granted stays based on the non-adjustment of substantial refunds against the outstanding demand. The case also involved a legal question regarding the limitation period, which was sub-judiced before the Supreme Court following a Madras High Court decision. The Tribunal noted that the delay in hearing the appeal was not attributable to the assessee and that the refunds due had not been adjusted against the demand.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471950 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. 140 taxmann 304 (Mad.)
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH TRIPATHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VISHAL KALRA
• Keywords: Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

"1 SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) A.Y. 2021-22 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘D’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) Assessment Year.: 2021-22 Ericsson AB , SE-164 83 ,Stockholm,Sweden v. ACIT (Int. Tax), Circle 1(2)(2), New Delhi. PAN No: AAACE 9466 B APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Ashish Tripathi, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 04.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 04.04.2025 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM: The assessee has filed this stay application in SA No. 227/Del/2025 arising out of ITA no. 3157/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2021- 22, seeking extension of stay on recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs. 270,19,64,220/- . 2. It is the case of the assessee that assessee was granted stay on Recovery of outstanding demand by the Tribunal, originally vide stay 2 SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) A.Y. 2021-22 order dated 8.12.2023 in SA no. 433/Del/2023 arising out of ITA no. 3157/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2021-22. It is also submitted that the originally while arguing stay application which culminated into stay order dated 08.12.2023, it was pleaded by ld. Counsel for the assessee before the Tribunal that the assessee has not been granted refund by the Department for the impugned assessment year as well as for A.Y. 2020-21 nor the same were adjusted against the outstanding demands. It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that the Tribunal while passing the original stay order dated 08.12.2023 after observing that keeping in view that substantial refundsas are due to the assessee which were lying with the Department, granted stay on recovery of the outstanding demand for the impugned assessment year. It was also the contention of the ld. Counsel for the assessee while arguing original stay application which culminated into stay order dated 08.12.2023 that the refund of Rs. 68,34,93,790/- for the impugned assessment year was determined by the Department but the same was not granted ,and rather it was added back by the Revenue to the computation of the income of the assessee, to determine and compute demand of Rs. 270,19,64,214/- payable by the assessee. Thus, it was claimed that assessee had been prejudiced for non grant of refund as well by addition of the said refund to the income of the assessee, and rather despite the said refund been never granted and instead the Revenue having raised the demand against the assessee. The stay on recovery of outstanding demand was extended from time to time by the Tribunal vide stay orders dated 3 SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) A.Y. 2021-22 21.06.2024 in SA no. 206/Del/2024; and further vide stay order dated 27.12.2024 in SA no. 531/Del/2024. It is the say of the learned counsel for the assessee that still the refunds have not been granted to the assessee and prayer were made for extension of the stay on recovery of the outstanding demand. 3. We have observed that the Tribunal while passing stay order dated 27.12.2024 had granted stay on recovery of outstanding demand keeping in view the stay on recovery of outstanding demand earlier granted on 08.12.2023 in SA no. 433/Del/2023 as well as further extended stay on recovery of outstanding demand vide stay order dated 21.06.2024 in SA no. 206/Del/2024 and further extension on stay on recovery of outstanding demand was granted vide order dated 27.12.2024 in SA No. 531/Del/2024, by noting that the delay in hearing of appeal is not attributable to the assessee. It is claimed by the assessee that since the grant of stay on recovery of the outstanding demand by the Tribunal on 27.12.2024 ,the assessee has not sought any adjournment and no fault can be attributable to the assessee. It is also submitted by ld. Counsel for the assessee that on 12.12.2024 the corresponding appeal in ITA no. 3157/Del/2023 has been adjourned sine die on the ground that the issue of limitation is sub-judiced before Hon’ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court in CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. 140 taxmann 304 (Mad.). The Departmental Representative could not controvert the above position. 4 SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) A.Y. 2021-22 3.1 Be that as it may by, it is observed that the original stay on recovery of outstanding demand was granted by the Tribunal on 08.12.2023 on the ground that substantial amount of refund is lying with the Revenue/department and the said refund was not adjusted by the Revenue against the outstanding demand. Since then more than one year has elapsed and we have been informed that the said position has not yet changed. We are issuing directions to the AO to re-compute the demand payable by the assesseeafter adjusting refunds so due to the assessee . We have also observed from the stay order dated 08.12.2023 in SA no. 433/Del/2023 that the Tribunal has also passed orders for earlier years in which it has been held that there is no PE in India of the assessee. This is a factual aspect and facts may vary from year to year and so on. Without commenting on the merits of the issue’s arising in the appeal and keeping in view totality of facts and circumstancesof the case, we extend the stay on the recovery of the outstanding demand for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal in ITA no. 3157/Del/2023, whichever is earlier. We have also noted that the keeping in view that the Tribunal has adjourned the appeal of the assessee sine-die keeping in view Hon’ble Madras High Court judgment and order in Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. (supra) which is now listed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 08.04.2025. Further, we have issueddirections to AO to re-compute the demand payable by the assesseeas on date after adjusting refunds due to the assessee, on merits in accordance with law. If the situation so warrant 5 SA no. 227/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 3157/Del/2023) A.Y. 2021-22 based on relevant and material changed facts and circumstances requiring interference by the Tribunal, the AO is granted liberty to approach the Tribunal for seeking necessary directions/orders wrt stay on recovery of outstanding demand so granted by us as aforesaid. We order accordingly. 4. The stay application is allowed in the manner as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 04th April, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR US) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 08.04.2025. *MPV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DRP 5. DR 6. Guard File Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "