GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY,UNITED STATES OF AMERICA V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (IT) -2(3)(2), MUMBAI

SA 33/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case involves General Electric Company, a U.S. entity, which filed a Stay Application concerning an outstanding tax demand for the assessment year 2021-22. The demand arose from a revised assessment order that increased the assessee's declared income significantly. The Tribunal considered the submissions and evidence presented, including the assessee's substantial tax payments relative to the demand, and decided to grant a stay on the recovery of the demand pending further proceedings.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473739 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUSHKARAJ BHANGEPATIL
• Assessee Lawyers: FRESHTE SETHNA AW
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “I” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.A. No. 33/MUM/2024 (Arising out of ITA No.4573/MUM/2023) (Assessment Year : 2021–22) General Electric Company, United States of America C/o. DMD Advocates, 121 Maker Chamber IV, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN: AAACG 5399 M ……………. Appellant v/s Asst. CIT (IT)-2(3)(2), Room No. 1711, 17th floor, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. ……………. Respondent Assessee by : Ms. Freshte Sethna a/w Mr. Mrunal Parekh Revenue by : Mr. Pushkaraj Bhangepatil, Sr. DR Date of Hearing – 31/01/2025 Date of Order – 03/02/2025 O R D E R PER SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL, J.M. The assessee has filed the present Stay Application in ITA No. 4573/Mum./2023, for the assessment year 2021-22, seeking a grant of stay on recovery of outstanding demand of Rs.15,90,75,510/-. 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorized Representative (“learned AR”) by referring to the order sheets passed in the present Stay Application submitted that an opportunity was granted to the Assessing S.A. No. 33/Mum/2024 2 Officer to verify the computation sheet, which is placed on page 411 of the Stay Application, whereby the assessee claimed that the tax collected for various assessment years, either by way of refund or by way of payment, exceeds 20% of the outstanding demands. Further referring to the last order sheet, the learned AR submitted that since sufficient time was already granted to the Department, it was directed that if the report of the Assessing Officer is not available by the next date of hearing, then the Stay Application will be disposed off on its own merits. 3. In his response, the learned Departmental Representative (“learned DR”) placed on record report dated 09.01.2025 by the Joint Commissioner of Income-tax (OSD) (IT) – 2(3)(2), Mumbai, wherein it is submitted that the aggregate demand on the assessee for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2021-22 is to the tune of Rs.401,91,85,632/- and out of which, the assessee has deposited taxes totalling to Rs.92,41,11,090/- (i.e. approximately 23% of tax was paid). 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated in the United States of America and is a tax resident of the United States of America. The assessee is engaged in providing services, which include the provision of connectivity services, relationship management, voice communication facility, monitoring of business security systems, etc., to the entities in India. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed its return of income on 15.03.2022, S.A. No. 33/Mum/2024 3 declaring a total income of Rs.95,05,67,590/-. The Assessing Officer, vide draft assessment order, proposed various additions and computed the total income of the assessee at Rs.161,38,72,763/-. In further proceedings before the learned Dispute Resolution Panel, the majority of the adjustments proposed by the Assessing Officer were upheld granting minor relief to the assessee pertaining to reimbursement of expenses. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed the final assessment order dated 18.10.2023 u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144(13) of the Act. However, on 25.10.2023, the Assessing Officer issued the corrigendum order in the case of the assessee assessing the total income at Rs.161,38,72,763/- resulting in the disputed demand. 5. Having considered the submissions of both sides and perused the material available on record, we find that prima facie balance of convenience lies favour of the assessee and as admitted by the Assessing Officer, the assessee has deposited approximately 23% of the disputed demand for all the assessment years including the year under consideration. Thus, in view of the first proviso to section 254(2A) of the Act, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case for a grant of stay of recovery of outstanding demand for a period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the disposal of the assessee’s corresponding appeal, whichever is earlier, subject to the condition that the assessee will not seek any adjournment without a just cause. In case of violation of the above condition, the stay herein granted shall be vacated and the appeal S.A. No. 33/Mum/2024 4 shall revert to its original position to be fixed in routine course. With these observations and subject to the condition, the Stay Application of the assessee is allowed. 6. In the result, the Stay Application by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/02/2025 Sd/- -AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 03/02/2025 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Mumbai; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Mumbai "