FUJIFILM INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI V. DCIT, CIRCLE-9(2), DELHI

SA 496/DEL/2024

AI Insights

Fujifilm India Private Limited filed a stay application against an outstanding tax demand of Rs. 11.77 crores for the assessment year 2021-22, arguing that the assessment order was barred by limitation as per section 153 of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal noted the ongoing Supreme Court proceedings regarding a similar case (CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd.), which had not yet resulted in a stay of the High Court's decision but was under consideration. The Tribunal decided to stay the demand temporarily, pending the Supreme Court's final decision on the matter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775798 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2024
• Other Referred Cases: CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (WA No.1609 & 1610 of 2021)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRASHANT MEHARCHANDANI
• Keywords: Application of stay

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “I” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.A.No.-496/Del/2024 [Arising out of ITA No.5485/Del/2024] [Assessment Year: 2021-22] M/s Fujifilm India Private Limited, Unit No. 521, Level V, Caddie Commercial Tower, Hospitality District Aero City, IGI Airport, Gurgaon Road, South West Delhi 110037, Delhi. PAN-AABCF1594J vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Delhi., DCIT, Circle-9(2), Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Prashant Meharchandani, Adv. & Ms. Kanika Jain, Adv. Respondent by Shri Amit Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement 10.09.2025 ORDER PER BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, AM: In the above Stay Application (‘S.A.’, for short), the assessee is seeking stay of demand of Rs. 11.77 crores (including demand of Rs. 40,00,000/- arising out of protective adjustment), Printed from counselvise.com S.A. No.-496/Del/2024 Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. 2 2. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has challenged the validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer as barred by limitation in terms of the provisions of section 153 of the Income Tax Act, (hereinafter referred to as ”the Act’). For this, reliance was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (WA No.1609 & 1610 of 2021). Thus, he prayed that the order so passed is bad in law and is unsustainable in the eyes of law and therefore, it is a fit case for granting the stay on the outstanding demand. 3. This matter was first heard on 06.12.2024 by this Bench, wherein the Tribunal, by its order sheet dated 06.12.2024 directed the Department that no coercive steps shall be taken by the AO to recover outstanding demand for the impugned assessment year. The matter was again taken up for hearing on 19.05.2025, wherein the Tribunal ordered as under: “At the time of hearing, the AR stated that the assessee has raised substantial ground challenging final Assessment Order passed by the AO on the ground that the same is barred by limitation as held by the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT vs Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., [2022] 445 ITR 537 (Mad). At this point, it is brought to our notice that order of Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Roca Bathroom Products P. Ltd., is pending consideration before Printed from counselvise.com S.A. No.-496/Del/2024 Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. 3 Hon'ble Supreme Court and the matter is sub-judice and orders are awaited. Hence, the matter is adjourned to 03-Sep-2025 (Wednesday). In the meanwhile, status qua be maintained till the next date of hearing. Both parties are informed in the Court.” 4. On this issue the Revenue has filed an SLP before the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the ruling of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has not stayed the ruling of the Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra). However, the Hon’ble Apex Court directed that such ruling shall not be cited as a precedent in any other subsequent matters till further orders by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 5. The appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No. 5485/Del/2024, connected to this Stay Application cannot be decided and the same has been adjourned sine-die due to the pendency of the appeal filed by the Department in the case of Roca Bathroom Products Pvt. Ltd. (supra), before the Hon’ble Apex Court. 6. In view of the above facts, the demand of the assessee is stayed for the period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the appeal, whichever is earlier. Printed from counselvise.com S.A. No.-496/Del/2024 Fujifilm India Pvt. Ltd. 4 7. In the result, captioned stay application filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 10.09.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Date:- 10.09.2025 Pooja (BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT 6. Guard File ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI Printed from counselvise.com "