HOMAG INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU V. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1)(3), BENGALURU

SA 140/BANG/2025

AI Insights

This case involves M/s. Homag India Private Limited, which filed a stay petition seeking an extension of stay on an outstanding demand of Rs. 2,09,41,033 for the assessment year 2021-22. The original stay was granted due to technical glitches that prevented the proper computation of income and set-offs for brought forward losses and depreciation, which if accounted for, would result in no tax payable by the assessee. The Income Tax Department acknowledged these issues but the rectification process was delayed. The assessee argued that the delay in the appeal's disposal was not due to their actions, citing instances where the Department sought adjournments related to pending decisions from higher courts. The Department did not contest the extension of stay, leading to the court's decision to grant the extension.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 787311 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2025
• Other Referred Cases: Roca Bathroom vs. Hon'ble Supreme Court
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BALUSAMY N.
• Assessee Lawyers: TATA KRISHNA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Application of stay; Extension of stay

Judgement Text

"SP No.140/Bang/2025 M/s. Homag India Private Limited, Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SP No.140/Bang/2025 (Arising out of IT(TP)A No.2299/Bang/2024) Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/s. Homag India Private Limited Plot No.285, Rajadhani Industrial Park Road No.7 KIADB, 4th Phase, Dabaspet Industrial Area Billenkote Village Bengaluru 562 111 PAN NO : AABCH4923P Vs. DCIT Circle 3(1)(3) Bangalore APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Tata Krishna, A.R. Respondent by : Sri Balusamy N., D.R. Date of Hearing : 21.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 O R D E R PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This stay petition arising out of IT(TP)A No.2299/Bang/2024 is filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2021-22 for seeking extension of stay of outstanding demand amounting to Rs. 2,09,41,033/-, which was originally stayed by this coordinate bench of Tribunal in SP No.72/Bang/2024 dated 2.6.2025 recording the fact that on perusal of the report of the AO dated 7.3.2025, wherein it was submitted that the details of income, brought forward losses were submitted to the CPC for computation, but the same was not carried out because of some technical glitches. By looking at the schedule BFLA, it was apparent that brought forward losses set off and brought forward depreciation set off were not granted to the Printed from counselvise.com SP No.140/Bang/2025 M/s. Homag India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 2 of 3 assessee. If these two set offs were granted, there would be no tax payable by the assessee. This fact had also not been denied by the ld. D.R. or the ld. AO. As the rectification process could not be carried out because of some technical glitches, it had been admitted by the AO that the assessee cannot be directed to pay tax because of this. In view of this, this bench directed the AO to keep the recovery of impugned demand of Rs.2,09,41,033/- in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal or till 180 days from the date of the order, whichever is earlier. This bench also directed the AO to dispose the rectification application as soon as possible. Further, this bench also directed the assessee not to seek adjournment on unreasonable grounds and make endeavor to get the appeal disposed of at the earliest. 2. The assessee by way of this stay application praying for the extension of stay of above demand by submitting that the delay in disposal of the appeal is not on account of the assessee because of the reason that twice when the appeals were fixed for hearing in July, 2025 and in September, 2025, on one occasion, the ld. D.R. sought time by submitting that the issue in the appeal involves the issue of the Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of Roca Bathroom and the same is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and on the other occasion, this bench did not function and accordingly, the ld. A.R. of the assessee prayed that the extension of stay may be granted as there are no new facts arising out of previous stay application. 3. The ld. D.R. on the other hand submitted that the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court is pending before the larger bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and therefore, the revenue is seeking adjournment. Printed from counselvise.com SP No.140/Bang/2025 M/s. Homag India Private Limited, Bangalore Page 3 of 3 4. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the original stay granted to the assessee. We find that delay in disposal of the appeal is not attributable to the assessee and also the facts & circumstances of the case for the grant of stay remains the same as on the order of the Tribunal dated 2.6.2025. Hence, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee deserves extension of stay and accordingly, the stay is granted for a further period of 180 days from the date of this order or till the date of disposal of appeal, whichever is earlier. We also direct the assessee not to seek any adjournment when the appeal is fixed for hearing. 5. In the result, stay petition filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Nov, 2025 Sd/- (Laxmi Prasad Sahu) Accountant Member Sd/- (Keshav Dubey) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 21st Nov, 2025. VG/SPS Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 5 Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "