EXXON MOBIL LUBRICANTS PVT. LTD.,BENGALURU V. ACIT, CIRCLE-7(1), NEW DELHI

SA 290/DEL/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Limited, the applicant, seeking an extension of stay on the recovery of an outstanding demand of Rs. 5,52,48,995/- related to income-tax and interest for the assessment year 2006-07. This demand arose from a second round of litigation, following an initial assessment and demand in the first round. The Tribunal had previously granted stays and extensions based on the circumstances and recoveries made by the department. The department did not object to the extension of the stay, given the unchanged facts and circumstances. The appeal related to this case is scheduled for a hearing on 24.06.2025.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 396865 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Other Referred Cases: CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. 445 ITR 537(Mad.)
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY KUMAR ARORA
• Assessee Lawyers: YISHU GOEL; ANIL KUMAR; A NKIT SAHNI
• Keywords: Set aside; Application of stay; Extension of stay
• Section: 143(3); 2

Judgement Text

"1 SA No. 290/Del/2025 ( In ITA No. 81/Del/2022) A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘I’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SA no. 290/Del/2025 (In ITA no. 81/Del/2022) A.Yr.: 2006-07 Exxon Mobil Lubricants Pvt. Limited, 5th floor, Tower-A, Crescent-1, Prestige Shantiniketan Building, Whitefield Main Road, Bengaluru-560048 Karnataka, India v. DCIT, Circle-7(1), New Delhi. PAN No: AABCE 0207 H APPLICANT RESPONDENT Assesseeby : Shri Yishu Goel, AR; & Shri Anil Kumar, Adv; & Shri Ankit Sahni, Adv. Revenue by : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date of Hearing :30.05.2025 Date of Pronouncement :30.05.2025 ORDER PER RAMIT KOCHAR, AM: This stay application in SA no. 290/Del/2025, arising out of ITA no. 81/Del/2022 pertaining to assessment year 2006-07, has been filed by the assessee, 2 SA No. 290/Del/2025 ( In ITA No. 81/Del/2022) A.Y. 2006-07 seeking extension of stay on recovery of outstanding demand of Rs. 5,52,48,995/- towards income-tax and interest thereon raised by the AO in second round of litigation, vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021passed by the AO u/s 254 read with Section 144C(5) read with Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the “Act”. 2. Our attention was drawn by ld. Counsel for the assessee to the original stay order dated 23.09.2022 in SA No. 320/Del/2022 passed by the ITAT, and it was submitted that originally the department has raised demand of Rs. 7,68,81,195/- in the first round of litigation vide assessment order dated 07.10.2010, while in the second round of litigation at the behest of the Tribunal, when the matter was set aside to learned DRP, the AO passed fresh assessment order keeping in view fresh directions issued by ld. DRP. It was submitted that the income was assessed at Rs. 14,74,90,025/- in the first round of litigation vide assessment order dated 07.10.2010 passed by the AO u/s 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961, while in the second round of litigation also , the income was assessed at Rs. 14,74,90,025/- by the AO vide assessment order dated 30.09.2021 u/s 254 read with Section 144C(5) read with Section 143(3) read with Section 144C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that originally notice of demand was raised for Rs.7,66,81,195/-, while it was submitted that in second round of litigation , the AO did not computed the income-tax demand and even notice of demand u/s 156 was not issued. But, the AO issued recovery notice dated 25.11.2021 wherein demand of Rs.5,52,48,995/- was shown as due and payable by the assessee. Thus, it was submitted that the department recovered more than 20% of the demand raised in the original assessment, while the income computed in the first round of litigation and second round of litigation remained the same. It was submitted that all these aspects 3 SA No. 290/Del/2025 ( In ITA No. 81/Del/2022) A.Y. 2006-07 were brought to the notice of the Tribunal at the time of arguing of the original stay petition in SA No. 320/Del/2022 which culminated into stay order dated 23.09.2022. Our attention was drawn to para 2-6 of the stay order dated 23.09.2022, wherein the ITAT considered the above facts. It was submitted that the Department has already recovered more than 20% of the outstanding demand vide assessment framed in second round of litigation vis-à-vis demand raised in the first round of litigation, while income assessed remaining the same. It was submitted that based on the same the stay was granted by the Tribunal vide order dated 23.09.2022 which has been extended by the Tribunal vide order dated 21.04.2023; 17.11.2023; 10.05.2024 and 22.11.2024. It was submitted that the facts and circumstances have remained same, and further that in corresponding appeal in ITA No. 81/Del/2022, the assessee has raised additional ground of appeal that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation keeping in view the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. 445 ITR 537(Mad.). The issue of limitation in the case of Roca Bathroom Products (P) Ltd. (supra) is now subjudiced before Hon’ble Supreme Court and that the Hon’ble Apex Court has already heard the matter and the judgment/orders are awaited. It was further submitted that after grant of the last extension of stay on recovery of the outstanding demand vide order dated 22.11.2024, the assessee has not sought the adjournment. It was submitted that either the appeal in ITA No. 81/Del/2022 was adjourned at the request of the department or the Bench adjourned the same either due to paucity of time or that there was non-functioning of the Bench. Now, the appeal is listed for hearing before Division Bench ‘I’ on 24.06.2025.Thus, it was prayed that there is no fault of the assessee, and the assessee wants that the appeal of the assessee be adjudicated at the earlier. Prayers were made to extend stay on recovery of the outstanding demand of Rs. 5,52,48,995/-. 4 SA No. 290/Del/2025 ( In ITA No. 81/Del/2022) A.Y. 2006-07 3. Learned Sr. DR stated that since facts and circumstances remained the same, department has no objection if the stay is extended. 4. After hearing both the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the issue arising in the appeal, we extend the stay on recovery of the outstanding demand towards income-tax and interest due thereon to the tune of Rs. 5,52,48,995/- against the assessee for a further period of 180 days or till the disposal of the corresponding appeal in ITA No. 81/Del/2022, whichever is earlier. However, the AO is directed to verify the contention of the assessee that the differential amount between Rs. 7,68,81,195/- as determined to be payable by the assessee in the first round of litigation and fresh demand of Rs. 5,52,48,995/- in second round of litigation viz. Rs. 2,16,32,200/- or so stood recovered by the department and is adjusted against the amount determined to be payable by the assessee towards income-tax and interest due thereon raised in second round of litigation and as reflected in notice of recovery dated 25.11.2021, and the aforesaid adjustment/recovery of Rs. 2,16,32,200/- or so has remained intact as on date, before giving effect to this extension of stay order. 5. Stay application in SA No. 290/Del/2025 is allowed in the manner as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 30th May, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (MS. MADHUMITA ROY) (RAMIT KOCHAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 03/06/2025. 5 SA No. 290/Del/2025 ( In ITA No. 81/Del/2022) A.Y. 2006-07 *MPV* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DRP 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi "